What Ellen White says about the reaction against the 1888 message sounds almost incredible. Could it be that a natural-born unbelief veils our eyes and heart? We humans seem to have difficulty believing "the testimony of Jesus." What was a defeat we like to call "a glorious victory." Where we lost our way we assume that we found it.

We must clarify hazy, indistinct impressions to as near pin-point accuracy as possible. Several avenues of heaven's blessing were blocked by the negative reaction toward the 1888 message. The inhabitants of heaven already realize what "we" did in that history, as follows:

This may sound impossible, for several reasons. It may be difficult for us readily to conceive of the Holy Spirit as a Person who can be insulted or who can feel it and be concerned about it. And it may be even more difficult to conceive how Seventh-day Adventists could do such a thing--certainly not ministers and General Conference leaders. But we must face what the Lord's messenger has to say. The testimony of Jesus does not gloss over reality:

The details of this history are precise and clear-cut. There need be no confusion in our thinking regarding intangibles. The reception of the Holy Spirit was implicit in the reception of the message itself. It would be impossible to receive the latter rain gift of the Holy Spirit and not receive the message through which the gift was given. And the good news that we today need to grasp is the corollary of this truth: it is equally impossible to receive the message today and not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit implicit with it. If we have not received the Holy Spirit in the power of the latter rain and the loud cry, this is clear evidence that we have not received the message that the Lord sent to us.

What is important in understanding 1888 is not the negative attitude of a few individuals, a so-called die-hard minority, but the spirit which "controlled" or "prevailed" at the 1888 Conference and thereafter. This is what had a determinative effect on that generation, and has had on every generation since. Ellen White is clear about that "controlling" influence:

The idea of insulting the Holy Spirit is more than a passing hyperbole. This tragedy affects us today as surely as the Jews' mistake of long ago affects them today.

A sin that an individual committed long ago as an insult to another person remains as a burden on his or her conscience and affects the character and personality. This can continue even for decades, as long as both individuals live and until repentance and restitution take place.

Likewise, the consciousness of the corporate body of the church, our denominational character and personality, our standing before Heaven, the spirit that permeates our churches, are affected negatively by this vital episode of our history. Our environmental heritage is inescapable. Jeremiah says that "the sin of Judah is . . . engraved on the tablet of their heart with a point of adamant" (17:1, NEB). And it extends from one generation to another (2:5, 9; 3:24, 25; 14:20). Until repentance takes place, we doom ourselves to repeat the sins of our fathers. Alienation from the Holy Spirit is deeply involved.

The Holy Spirit is a Person, not a mere influence or an ethereal "it." He can be grieved. This keen concept of the personality of God as the Holy Spirit pervades the Hebrew Scriptures. The prophets were constantly representing God as the disappointed, grieved lover of Israel's soul. The idea is unique to Israel, for no pagan religion had any such concept of a "jealous" divine personality.

The same truth pervades the New Testament, and is also impressively emphasized in Ellen White's testimonies. However, the idea is generally lacking in modern Catholic and Protestant teaching. A full appreciation of this reality is unique to those who will welcome the Lord at His second coming, for they are corporately represented as a bride who has at last made herself ready for the intimate relationship of marriage (Revelation 19:7-9. The 1900's "alpha" heresy of pantheism attacked this truth of the personality of the Holy Spirit; the "omega" will doubtless renew that error).

Grieved and insulted, He has a right to retribution. And how can He seek it, consistent with His character of love? His retribution is more poignantly painful to endure than any other, for it will still be the voice of love that speaks:

The context of this statement is a discussion of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

This also is difficult for us to see. Again, the personality of the Son of God is at issue. Does He have feelings as we humans do? Can He be grieved? What happened in our 1888 history seems so astonishing that the story would be incredible if it were not clearly told in the writings of Ellen White. Her discernment was inspired.

The meek and lowly Jesus still chooses messengers who are "only men," who are like "a root out of a dry ground." He condescended to identify Himself with the 1888 messengers and was grieved and insulted when the "heavenly credentials" He gave them were despised:

But even in modern times, our esteemed church historian casts contempt upon the messenger, if not upon the message itself:

A more accurate assessment would be that the 1888 messengers "bore almost exclusively" on a "faithwhich works by love" precisely as Paul preached it (Galatians 5:6). That message with "divine credentials" was not a compromising mixture of legalism and gospel. They did most emphatically proclaim righteousness by faith alone--but it was New Testament faith which demonstrates its built-in motivating power for true obedience to all the commandments of God (TM 92).

Did those messengers who were declared to represent our Lord "arouse" the "rancors" that made Heaven turn from the scene with shame? Would the Lord grant "heavenly credentials" to messengers who were not disposed to "calmly reason"? Ellen White, for sure, could never recognize "precious light" in unsanctified "shouting" or the unreasonable "extreme teaching" that our author attributes to them (Spalding, op. cit., pp. 593, 601).

Back of the shameful scene at Minneapolis, and back of the confusing shadows caused by our unbelief today, stands the Figure who was the Rock of offence and the Stone of stumbling at that fateful meeting. We come face to face with reality:

The true Christ has always been misapprehended. As often expected, He has as often been rejected. But modern Israel must overcome at last all past failures of ancient Israel. This will take place, for we are living in the time of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. This is a special end-time work of overcoming that has never been completed in the past.

Flesh and blood can never reveal to us the true credentials of the "root out of a dry ground" that may stand before us. The story of 1888 teaches us that the ancient Jews will have to make room in history for us to kneel down beside them:

Many say, "If I had only lived in the days of Christ, I would not have wrested His words, or falsely interpreted His instruction. I would not have rejected and crucified Him, as did the Jews." But that will be proved by the way in which you deal with his message and His messengers today (RH April 11, 1893).

The issue of 1888 was not how much "emphasis" to place on the preaching of this "doctrine" in relation to our other "peculiar" doctrines. The real issue was, "What think ye of Christ?" It is futile for us today to talk of establishing a right "relationship with Christ" unless we face this reality of 1888.

In order to bolster our confidence that we do not need repentance, we have produced Seminary theses "to inquire what place the teaching of justification and righteousness by faith has been accorded alongside the distinctive tenets" of the church. Graphs have been made counting the number of times the words "righteousness," "justification," "faith," "salvation," "Saviour," and "law" have appeared in our Sabbath School Quarterlies, "to prove that Seventh-day Adventists have not slighted the emphasis on salvation through Christ." Can computers now measure our faithfulness and prove that the True Witness is wrong? If mere verbiage is the criterion, Roman Catholicism must be the most Christ-centered teaching in the world.While the Son of God continues to suffer, must we cast lots in various inquiries to see how to divide His vesture, this "doctrine or tenet of righteousness by faith alongside the distinctive tenets of the church"? The righteousness of Christ is vastly more than a mere verbal repetition.

The grandest eschatalogical opportunity of the ages was rejected in our 1888 era. What was despised was an intimate heart reconciliation with Christ such as a bride feels for her bridegroom. But verbiage and cold doctrine have been substituted for it.

Dry homilies that split hairs between imputed and imparted righteousness, justification and sanctification, expiation and propitiation, have made "righteousness by faith" become nauseating to many. The same trouble prevailed soon after 1888. Ellen White discusses the efforts of those whose hearts opposed the message:

May we come to see how the living, loving Christ was insulted at Minneapolis, and not the cold doctrine that was misunderstood! We distrusted those swellings of the heart which were His drawings, and cast contempt upon Him who was drawing us by terming His tenderness "fanaticism." The tears that started to flow from the mysterious attraction of the uplifted cross drew from us zealous declaiming "against enthusiasm and fanaticism" (TM 80, 81).

Jesus knows our human nature, for He Himself partakes of it still. He is a Person. He too knows self-respect. He came very near to us in 1888. "Not a soul of us dreams of what might have been" in the sweet days that would have followed had we walked with Him in Heaven's glorious light. We often speak of 1844 as "the Great Disappointment." But 1888 was His disappointment, for we can read of how He loved us. That intimacy of love we would not have. Why should we marvel if He did not force it upon us?

We were told at Minneapolis itself:

Again the testimony of Ellen White stretches our faith. But we must understand reality. Human hearts trifled with the tender love of One who gave His blood for us. Finally, on the part of "many" in leadership, the trifling changed to what Ellen White sadly was forced to call "hatred." Seven years after Minneapolis she said to those "many":

Heaven was "indignant" (TM 76). There is an intimacy of divine personal grief involved here that is unique in modern religious history, perhaps in all time. We are reminded of the heart cries of Jeremiah and Hosea of old. Ellen White said at Minneapolis: "If you only knew how Christ has regarded your religious attitude at this meeting" (Ms. 8a, 1888; Olson, p. 281). Four years later, "There is sadness in heaven over the spiritual blindness of many of our brethren" (RH July 26, 1892). Speaking of "those who resisted the Spirit of God at Minneapolis," she said:

These are sad words to record, but we cannot be honest and refuse to face their full implications. What "the heavenly Watcher noticed" must also be "written in the book of [our] remembrance." We can see ourselves in those dear brethren of a century ago, for "there, but for the grace of God, am I."

The attitude of leadership to Ellen White's support of the 1888 message was similar to that of ancient Israel and Judah to prophets such as Elijah and Jeremiah. Note her frank remarks shortly after the Minneapolis conference:

These were not the words of a woman who was overwrought emotionally. She had good reason for her feelings:

It would not be fair to characterize Ellen White's heart reaction to this as "emotional," or that of Jones and Waggoner. But all three were human beings with hearts that could be wounded. All three felt pain and grief, as did the ancient prophets. Ellen White in particular sensed keenly the premonitions of the final persecution of the saints. She actually used the word "persecution" to describe the heart attitude of leading brethren toward the 1888 messengers (GCB 1893, p. 184).

On the other hand, it was a puzzle to the sincere brethren of that era how she could support two apparently faulty young men against the calm, stolid judgment of nearly all the established leaders and ministers. If "balance" was needed, why did she support the apparently unbalanced? Why did she liken the brethren's reaction against Jones' and Waggoner's message to the Jews' reaction against Christ?

The 1888 opposition was composed of good, sincere, self-sacrificing, hard-working ministers. Their concern for the progress of the church was genuine. It was their fear that this beautiful vision of Christ's righteousness would lead to fanaticism. But this fear calcified human hearts. There seems only one way to understand this mysterious reaction. A careful study of Ellen White's numerous statements indicates that it was the revelation of the breadth, and length, and depth, and height of Christ's love (agape ) that our dear, hard-working brethren were instinctively opposing. The love revealed at the cross "constraineth us" so that believers henceforth find it impossible to go on living for self (2 Corinthians 5:14, 15). The profound truth seems to be that this kind of devotion to Christ, this closer intimacy with Him, was unwelcome:

Thus we are brought to the foot of Christ's cross. Here is the mysterious continental divide in Adventism where faith and unbelief go their separate ways. Of all human beings, the gospel minister or administrator faces the most subtle temptation to indulge a disguised love of self. Unless he surveys that wondrous cross and casts contempt on all his professional and personal pride, he will unconsciously resist the agape revealed there. John Bunyan in The Pilgrim's Progress saw hard by the very gate of heaven there is a path that leads to hell.

Ellen White did not consider Jones' or Waggoner's presentations to be either extreme or radical, but tried to reason with the brethren who thought they were. Widely published statements such as the following perpetuate a myth:

Her remarks were not directed against any "extreme views" Waggoner had. Instead of charging him with being radical or extreme, she intimates that some of his views were immature--there was not "perfection." In God's plan, this immaturity was to be overcome by faithful, earnest "digging in the mines of God for the precious ore." The light that shone in 1888 was only the "beginning" of the light which was to lighten the earth with glory. Such glorious light began to shine through imperfect but divinely chosen channels.

It was not God's plan that one or two young men should do all the digging. Other more mature minds should go on with it, willing to receive "every ray of light that God shall send . . . though it should come through the humblest of His servants" (Ms. 15, 1888). Within their lifetime the everlasting gospel should unfold in a mature and complete whole, ready to lighten the earth with the glory of truth.

If this was God's purpose, it would be necessary that the views of both Waggoner and Jones should not be perfect or mature at this early stage of development. They were merely to challenge their brethren to the greatest treasure hunt of the ages. The very imperfections and immaturity of their views would rally the hearty cooperation of their brethren. Had the two young men seen all the light in its perfection, where would have been the joy of their brethren in the sheer delight of discovery? God, in His infinite mercy, would share it among them.

It was this gracious privilege that the brethren scorned, taunting the pioneer miners of hidden veins of truth with being "fanatics" and "extremists." To suggest that the messengers even at Minneapolis were unstable, in danger of being "carried away" with their "extreme views," casts an unjustified aspersion on Ellen White herself. Would she not be naive if she endorsed young messengers so untrustworthy?

She almost recklessly risked her reputation on enthusiastic and persistent support of their message. Could the Lord choose messengers so unstable? Would He endow them with a message so potentially self-destructive? Is it dangerous to yield to be the Lord's messenger? Surely God's mercy is greater than to endow His servants with self-destruct messages!

We must note briefly how in several General Conference assemblies speakers have openly recognized that the anti-1888 spirit included virtual defiance of Ellen White's ministry:

No one in the Session congregation challenged him, for all knew that what he said was true. At the 1986 Annual Council in Rio de Janeiro, Robert W. Olson of the White Estate also stated that in the 1888 session Ellen White was "publicly defied" (Adventist Review, October 30, 1986). In 1889, she said:

Of course, not all the brethren opposed her so. But open support for her was inconspicuous. The Lord's humble messenger realized at Minneapolis what was happening. The larger blessings of the latter rain caused former friends to change their attitude from positive to negative:

In 1893 she said, "The office of a messenger whom God has chosen to send with reproofs and warnings is strangely misunderstood at the present time" (RH July 18, 1893).

So determined was the post-1888 opposition to Ellen White that the General Conference virtually exiled her to Australia. While it is true that the Lord overruled her sojourn there for the good of His cause in that continent, it was never His will that she go at that time. She says that the Lord wanted the inspired trio to stay together in America and to fight the battle through to victory. Her own writings indicate that the leading brethren wanted both Ellen White and Waggoner out of the way.

It is well known that Mrs. White went only because the General Conference appointed her to go (a laudable example of cooperation with the church leadership!). In 1896 she wrote very frankly to the General Conference president:

Those who say that the 1888 message was accepted by the leadership of the church may interpret Ellen White's years in Australia as General Conference cooperation with the Holy Spirit. It is true that she was able to write good letters back home. But depriving North America of her personal ministry at this critical time ensured "in a great measure" the eventual defeat of the beginning loud cry message.

E. J. Waggoner suffered a similar exile in being sent to England in the spring of 1892. There is evidence also that it was not pure missionary zeal that sent him. Ellen White was now gone; the second member of the special trio must also leave. We note the following in Gilbert M. Valentine's doctoral thesis on W. W. Prescott:

A year before Ellen White went to Australia she poured out her heart in a letter to J. S. Washburn, a young minister. Here, like Jeremiah, she writes almost in despair. She vividly describes the prevailing climate at the headquarters in Battle Creek:

Ellen White's ministry to the Seventh-day Adventist Church frequently exhibits this Jeremiah-like quality. The ancient prophet's message is present truth. The 1888 episode is a parable, and God will test us again.

Because the facts of our 1888 history have been so widely garbled, our contemporary attitude is still unappreciative of Jones and Waggoner's work. We still are suspicious lest their message may lead to fanaticism. We still falsely assume that it carried the two messengers away into apostasy. As long as we think thus, should the Lord send any more pearls of truth to be cast before us, we would be obliged to react to such a message as did the opposition of the 1888 era.

We today inherit no genetic guilt of our forefathers who rejected the grandest opportunity of the ages, the beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry; but we are their spiritual descendants. Holy Scripture teaches no genetic transmission of sin, "original" or otherwise, from generation to generation. But there is a transmission of sin which is not genetic. "By one man sin entered into the world." "Sin abounded" and "hath reigned unto death." "All the world [has] become guilty before God" (Romans 5:12, 20, 21; 3:19). This mysterious transmission of sin is clarified for us in the following statement:

We have more light than had our forefathers, hence we have greater responsibilities. The heart alienation from Christ that caused the rejection of the 1888 message is today far more subtle, more sophisticated, more deeply buried beyond our consciousness. But it is no less real. Only the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit will make it manifest. The time must come at last for each of us when "the cross will be presented, and its real bearing will be seen by every mind that has been blinded by transgression. Before the vision of Calvary with its mysterious Victim, sinners will stand condemned" (DA 58). Would it not be a blessing if we could see that cross today before it is too late?

The Holy Spirit enables the sincere believer to see himself or herself reflected in Bible characters of long ago. He can likewise enable us to see ourselves in our forefathers of a century ago. We are innately no better than they. The Holy Spirit can heal us of the blindness that permits us to see evil if it is sufficiently farfetched and distant in the past while we fail to recognize it under our very nose. God's word has been true from the very beginning:

To realize the truth that our forefathers insulted the true Christ and the true Holy Spirit is not itself bad news. And to unveil the reality of deep-seated resistance of "the testimony of Jesus" is a blessing. In no other way than facing truth can we prepare for future tests. The truth is positive, upbeat, encouraging.

The good news is that Heaven has all along been more willing to grant the final outpouring of God's Spirit than we have thought. It's only our continued resistance, often unconscious, that has hindered the Gift now for nearly a century, despite our prayers for it.

To face the truth honestly has to be a source of joy. The stability and progress of the organized church can only be blessed by it.

______________

Never does Ellen White say that the "some" who opposed were "few," nor does she say that those who accepted were "many." Without known exception, those who rejected the message were "many" and those who accepted were "few."

See for example, 1 Samuel 8:7; 12:6-12; Isaiah 50:1; 54:5-17; 61:10; 63:9-14; Jeremah 31:1-9; Ezekiel 16; Hosea, passim .

Incidentally, although Ellen White took no firm stand on the "law in Galatians" in 1888, by 1896 she was ready to take a stand. Waggoner had been right all along! "The law in Galatians [is] . . . especially . . . . the moral law" (1 SM 234, 235).

See Appendix for a discussion of the charge that Jones was teaching the error of "holy flesh" and perfectionism as early as a few months after the 1888 conference.