The History of
the 1888 Message?

The Background of the 1888 Message

For those who have not had time to read deeply into the history of the 1888 message, here is a brief outline:

  1. The Seventh-day Adventist church was "born" in an experience of true love for Jesus which was evident in the 1844 movement."36
  2. Although our people had become aware as early as 1856 that the Laodicean message applied uniquely to the remnant church, the message had not done its work. By the 1880's the church had settled into a generally lukewarm condition.37
  3. In the 1880's, Ellen White wrote burning messages of appeal to the church at large to accept the counsel of the True Witness.38 She often said that we had "left [our] first love."39
  4. While the church was retrograding spiritually, it was advancing financially, in number of adherents, and in the prestige of its institutions. A heart-preparation for the coming of Christ receded into the background.
  5. Our ministers and evangelists enjoyed almost uninterrupted success in arguing and debating the doctrines of "present truth" before the people. Pride and self-esteem flourished in the ministers and leadership.
  6. As early as 1882, the Lord began to prepare two messengers who in His providence would be ready by 1888 to call the church to repentance and revival, and thus to present a clearer understanding of "the third angel’s message in verity."40 Passing by those whom He could not use, He gave these young men "heavenly credentials."41
  7. The Lord educated and disciplined them so that they were able to honor His name at the time of the 1888 Conference.42 Ellen White supported them unequivocally.43 Their message was pure, beautiful gospel truth.44
  8. Although most of the "leading men" rejected their message45 Ellen White’s support made it possible for Jones and Waggoner to visit institutes and camp meetings with her after the 1888 Conference, where the message demonstrated its "credentials" in phenomenal revivals and reformation.46 "Like a wave of glory, the blessings of God swept over us," she said. "We felt the deep movings of His Spirit."47 Never since the "Midnight Cry" of 1844 had the Holy Spirit so wonderfully endorsed a message among us.48

This created a new problem concerning the message. A spirit of "jealousy" came in among the "leading men" and now "they hated it the more, because it was a testimony against them. They would not humble their hearts to repent, to give God the glory, and vindicate the right."49 They "stood to bar the way against all evidence."50 In the midst of these stirring revivals, Ellen White wrote plaintively in the Review & Herald, "How long will those at the head of the work keep themselves aloof from the message of God?"51 Due to their opposing influence, "the people … do not know whether to come and take hold of this precious truth or not."52

  1. Although "many" of the leading brethren in fact rejected the message and only a "few" in heart accepted it,53 some later confessed how mistaken they were.54 These "confessions" are the basis for most of the historians’ insistence on a "glorious victory."55 However, many previously unknown Ellen White statements now disclose how leaders who "confessed" later returned to their spirit of unbelief and rejection, or failed to help in the crisis.56 As the nineteenth century at last turned into the twentieth, "not one" of the initial rejectors was helping to proclaim the message effectively!57
  2. Ministers who lived through that era generally reminisced their personal assumptions that the 1888 message was well accepted.58 Their "affidavits" allegedly prove that "there was no denomination-wide or leadership-wide rejection, these witnesses insisted."59 But these brethren did not have the discernment of the gift of prophecy, and could not rightly discern the significance of what was happening.

We wish to afford the honored brethren of that era the utmost respect and deference which they are due. But do we dare accept their assumption in clear contradiction to the testimony of the Lord’s messenger who exercised the gift of prophecy? To doubt or contradict Ellen White’s judgment here is to discredit her life ministry, for never was she so emphatic about any stand she ever took as she was regarding the 1888 message and history.

The Reaction Against the Message

NOTES:

  1. See GC 369-373; EW 238; SR 369-374, GC 398, 400, 402. [Return to text]
  2. See A.G. Daniells, Christ Our Righteousness, pp. 27-40 (not to be confused with Waggoner’s Christ and His Righteousness). [Return to text]
  3. For example, RH Nov. 2, 1886; July 24,1888; Oct. 28,1884; Aug. 31,1886; Jan 31,1888; July 3,1888. [Return to text]
  4. For example, TM 167-173; RH Sept. 3,1889; Dec. 9,1890. [Return to text]
  5. Compare E.J. Waggoner’s account of his "vision" of "Christ crucified" in 1882 ("Last Confession of Faith," written before his death May 28,1916) with 5T 81, 82 (also 1882) and Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, article on Jones. [Return to text]
  6. Ellen White, RH Mar. 18, 1890; May 27, 1890; Sept. 3, 1889, TM 413. [Return to text]
  7. Jones’ diligent study pre-1888 is described in SDA Encyclopedia, article on A.T. Jones, also in Spalding, op. cit., p. 291. Both Jones and Waggoner received reproof from Ellen White (cf. CWE 75-82, Letter Feb. 18, 1887) and apparently accepted it in humble spirit. [Return to text]
  8. It is as yet impossible to document all the Ellen White endorsements of their message which keep coming to light. The total is now nearly three hundred. [Return to text]
  9. See the following, "What Was the 1888 Message?" After 1890, and even through 1896, we do not find any Ellen White statement questioning the basic theological understanding shared by Jones and Waggoner. [Return to text]
  10. See TCV 290, 291, 292 (MS 9,1888), 301 ["At this meeting . . . opposition, rather than investigation, is the order of the day,"] (MS 15,l888); Letter B-21,1888 ["The spirit and influence of the ministers generally who have come to this meeting is to discard light"], (Oct. 14); 1SM 234, 235. [Return to text]
  11. See Olson, pp. 56-81. [Return to text]
  12. RH Mar. 18, 1890. [Return to text]
  13. Some examples of the intensity of this revival can be found in RH Feb. 12,1889, and following issues of Feb. 19, March 5, July 23, Sept. 3. Nothing like it was known before nor has been known since in the Seventh-day Adventist church. [Return to text]
  14. Letter S-24,1892, "Some of our brethren … are full of jealousy … and are ever ready to show in just what way they differ with Elder Jones or Waggoner"; compare TM 80. [Return to text]
  15. Letter O-10, 1892. [Return to text]
  16. RH Mar. 18, 1890. [Return to text]
  17. RH Mar. 11,1890. [Return to text]
  18. No statement exists in which EGW refers to those who accepted the message as "many"; invariably they are "few." The rejectors are always "many." ("Some" is indefinite and can "mean either unless context is clear.) See TM 64, 65, 76, 77, 89-97; her diary for Jan. 29, 31, Feb. 1, 8, 1890; Daniells, The Abiding Gift of Prophecy, p. 369, "The Lord’s messenger took her stand almost alone [with Jones and Waggoner] . . .amid either hesitancy or active opposition on the part of many." The fact that "some" accepted must not be minimized; but the "many" who rejected overwhelmed them (see TM 80, 89-97; RH Mar. 18, 1890; MS 2,1890, p. 3). [Return to text]
  19. See Olson, pp. 82-114. [Return to text]
  20. See Froom, op. cit., pp. 367-370; Spalding, p. 297. Christian does not even mention the "confessions," as he assumes Minneapolis to be a "glorious victory." [Return to text]
  21. All of these EGW statements have now been released and published in the four-volume set of 1888 Materials (1,812 pages). Statements cited here can be readily located using the Index in Volume One. See Letter S-24,1892, addressed to Uriah Smith, and RH, May 10, 1892, for evidence that he was still opposing the message after his confession; EGW Letter of Jan. 9, 1893, "This blind warfare [against Jones and Waggoner] is continued," speaking of Smith. See Letter S-256-1892 which mentions "Elder Smith, Elder Van Horn and Elder Butler" as still opposing and who "will meet with eternal loss; for though they should repent and be saved at last, they can never regain that which they have lost" (Aug. 30, 1892). [Return to text]
  22. See Letter B-2a, 1892, where she says that "not one" of those who opposed the light at Minneapolis had to date come to the light. This was after most of the confessions. Pease says "no Elishas were in evidence by 1900 ready to assume the mantle in case something should happen to the three principal champions . . ." (By Faith Alone, p. 164). This is true. [Return to text]
  23. See C. McReynolds, "Experiences While at the General Conference in Minneapolis … " D. File 189; Froom, pp. 255-268. R.T. Nash in his "Eyewitness Report" is an exception, "The speakers [Jones and Waggoner] met a united opposition from nearly all the senior ministers," and says nothing about later confessions. [Return to text]
  24. Froom, p. 256. (No one except Froom has ever seen those "affidavits.") [Return to text]

 
Home  |  Articles Index  |  1888: Brief Look Index