A.T. Jones: THE MAN AND THE MESSAGE

Knight's Solution to Our Spiritual Problem

Knight's quote from Bert Haloviak that "the various factions within the Adventist Church still 'need each other' as they seek to find and apply the full-orbed gospel to their lives" is more than true (p. 74). A hundred years ago, the General Conference did their best to silence Jones and Waggoner and would have succeeded had it not been for their defense by Ellen White. And now in our Centennial year we must beware lest we repeat that sad history.

Our denominational problems could be solved in an incredibly short time if we would let the Holy Spirit do His unifying work in our midst. We certainly need each other. If we will learn the lesson of 1888, we will be willing to listen to each other.

Knight makes an earnest plea for "caringness" in the Adventist Church. Without doubt, we need this. But to appeal for "caringness" without seeing how to achieve it is vain, and inevitably deteriorates again into the futility of our century-old "rich and increased with goods" complex.

According to Knight, we do not need the actual message the Lord sent us in 1888. Incredibly, we need "an experience" of "warmth" while at the same time by-passing the "theological positions" and the "doctrines" of the message which the Lord sent to us in order to provide it:

Mrs. White … was not interested in doctrinal issues at the 1888 conference." We are "not to fixate on the words of Jones and Waggoner." "The message of 1888, as Ellen White viewed it, is not doctrinal" (cf. pp. 66, 68, 69).

However, Knight quotes her out of setting. The "danger" she was warning about was not that of "dwelling" on the true Biblical doctrines of righteousness by faith, but on the cold, proof-text "doctrines" that our ministers had thought were the third angel's message, such as the Sabbath, the state of the dead, etc. We will quote Knight's appeal with his emphasis:

The great need of Seventh-day Adventists in the last quarter of the nineteenth century was warmth, caringness, and a personal experience with Jesus in their daily lives. That is still the greatest lack of the church. Only when individuals put away the spirit of Minneapolis and take up the spirit of Christ will they be ready for the Second Coming. The meaning of 1888 is to learn its central lessons and to start living the caring Christian life now. The meaning of 1888 is to face forward, not backward. The meaning of 1888 is the call for Adventists to put away their theological disputes as being all-important, and to treat each other like Christians even though they disagree. Only then will they be in a position to testify convincingly that they have Christ's message for a dying world. Also, we should never forget that Ellen White, Adventism's foremost interpreter of 1888, was not obsessed with the Minneapolis event (p. 71).

There is a serious flaw in this methodology that takes us back to square one and tends to vitiate the significance of a hundred years of history. The idea is to disparage objective Bible truth and to exalt subjective experience, forgetting that the latter can not be solid and lasting when the former is confused. Our decades of flirting with the evangelical "Victorious Life" enthusiasm should be enough to convince us. Because Knight's philosophy is so widely prevalent, we must analyze it:

1. He rightly says that the spiritual condition of the church in the 1888 era was like that of ours today. What did the Lord do then to correct this sad deficiency of "caring," this lack of Christlike love? He sent "a most precious message" of justification by faith, that of 1888. This was an objective gospel.
2. But Knight has insisted that the actual doctrinal and theological content of that "most precious message" that "the Lord in His great mercy sent" is not only unimportant, but erroneous and dangerous in significant ways.
3. Thus he has rejected the Lord's only means of healing that very condition of the church in the 1888 era. Now we have the same problems a hundred years later. What solution does he suggest for us today? It is "wrongheaded" he says to consider the 1888 message and history as "a solution to the failure of the denomination" (p. 99). Forget the doctrinal content and history of the 1888 message, and "start living the caring Christian life now."

This means spiritual revival and reformation, all very good; but we must "start" without benefit of the specific means that the Lord provided in order to achieve that end.

Where in history has any lasting revival and reformation permeated the church without understanding pure gospel truth? A century of history tells us that we cannot pull ourselves up by our emotional bootstraps of induced enthusiasm. We cannot achieve "caringness" without clearly appreciating what Paul calls "the truth of the gospel." The best we can achieve otherwise is a social-gospel injection of pop psychology. The window-dressing of "caringness" may be impressive, but the true love of Christ will be absent apart from comprehending the true gospel of Christ. One can't accept a UPS parcel while rejecting the UPS van.

Ellen White's context clearly supports the distinctive theological verities of the 1888 message. Scripture truth is essential to understand in order for "warmth" to permeate the church in a permanent, effective way. Otherwise we make nonsense of her appeals.

4. Legalism majors in traditional appeals to "start living the … Christian life now" apart from clear gospel truth. Such appeals sound good; they are highly popular (as legalism always is, especially in committees); the easy, natural thing is to nod the head, say amen and vote, "Let's do it." And we have been resolving so for a century. Our Reviews and General Conference Bulletins testify of continuous pious exhortations … "we-must-be-more-faithful," "we-must-get-up-earlier," "we-must-pray-more," "we-must-study-our-Bible-more," "we-must-love-more," "we-must-be-more-Christ-like," "we-must-sacrifice-more," "we-must-visit-our-neighbors-more," "we-must-work-harder." But telling people what to do without providing true New Testament motivation falls far short of gospel Good News.

Ellen White rejoiced in the message of Jones because she saw in it a motivation whereby these familiar legalistic imperatives of Adventism could be translated into joyous gospel enablings. (Letters and personal testimonies from a growing number of youth and older church members bear personal witness first-hand to the spiritual power inherent in the unique "Good News" truths of that message. This is a phenomenon that has probably not been known since the 1888 era).

5. Knight says we must not look backward but forward.

While this is patently true, he fails to see that the real need of the church is the recovery of the pure truth of justification by faith, of which popular Evangelicalism is not the proper source. There is hope for the church if we will believe Ellen White's counsel, "We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history" (Life Sketches, p. 196, emphasis supplied). This does not mean an "obsession" with 1888, but it surely means mastering the truth about it so we can face forward with understanding.

Knight disparages an interest in the 1888 message, saying Ellen White "was not obsessed with the Minneapolis event" (p. 71). Why then would she write those 1,812 pages?

6. Our need for unity is acute.

Theological disputes bring confusion and discouragement to thoughtful new believers. There is no living prophet to whom we can look with informed confidence as was the case a century ago, and Ellen White's voluminous writings appear to admit of multiple interpretations. To date, no leader has arisen who can successfully command the unity we need in understanding her apparently contradictory writings. What can bring about the unity that Knight with all the rest of us desires?