The "Majority Report" of the Primacy of the
Gospel Committee
of the General Conference (PGC), of February 8, 2000
by Robert J. Wieland, a member of the 1888 Message
Study Committee
(1888MSC) and a member of the Primacy Committee
November 10, 2000
On May 17, 1994 the PGC was formed by action of the then president of
the General Conference and by its ADCOM members (the highest
administrative committee). The main purpose for forming this ad hoc
committee was to study into the actual message which A.T. Jones and E.
J. Waggoner taught during the 1888 decade (which message was then
endorsed by Ellen G. White over 300 times), to determine if their
message finds clear support in the Bible, and to understand what it was.
Is the Seventh-day Adventist Church proclaiming it clearly today? A
secondary purpose later emerged—to seek for Christlike unity in
understanding and proclaiming God's last-day message of justification by
faith.
In view of counsels from the Bible and Ellen White's writings, these
two goals are praise-worthy, for in John 17 Jesus pleads that His
followers allow themselves to be "one," and in 7:24 He
commands us, "Judge righteous judgment." The
"Majority" members of the PGC on February 8, 2000 issued their
"Report" as the result of the final meeting. Widely published
on the web, it has aroused deep interest. Questions sent me and requests
have led me to write this personal "Response."
The 1888 message was declared by Ellen White to be something far in
advance of the "gospel" understandings of the Sunday-keeping
churches. In her view, it was "the beginning" of the loud cry
of Revelation 18 and of the long-awaited (and long-prayed-for!) latter
rain. Thus she saw the 1888 view of justification and righteousness by
faith as a unique truth parallel to and consistent with the special
Adventist idea of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, which work
began in 1844.
She recognized that no other church grasps this truth embodied in
Daniel 8:14, which is the "foundation of our faith," she says.
She identified the 1888 message as "the third angel's message in
verity." Yet the great majority of Seventh-day Adventist Church
members are uninformed of the actual content of the 1888 message, and
are perplexed about confusing views of its history.
The six 1888MSC representatives rejoiced when the General Conference
leadership appointed them to be voting members of the PGC, for it seemed
that at last these serious issues were to be studied fairly and
thoroughly, with the Bible as the ultimate source of authority.
The PGC was composed of 17 individuals, eleven from the General
Conference and six from the 1888MSC. It met about twice a year for a
total of 15 full days. Frequently the six from the 1888MSC were
alternately disappointed by what seemed an unwillingness to receive the
Good News understandings taught by those whom Ellen White described as
"the Lord's special messengers," and on the other hand they
were encouraged by what seemed evidence that some in the General
Conference were beginning to perceive that message more positively. In
general, the spirit that pervaded the sessions was one of cordial
Christian fellowship and mutual respect.
The prevailing attitude was thus the most open, friendly, and
reasonable of any of the previous committees for 50 years. We
appreciated what seemed to be sincere efforts to reach consensus.
Several of the General Conference members at times expressed sincere
appreciation for key 1888 concepts that had previously been
misunderstood. The six members from the 1888MSC cherished hopes that the
PGC would result in a fulfillment of Jesus' John 17 prayer that His
followers become "one."
At the final brief meeting on February 8, 2000, the spirit abruptly
reversed. It was apparent that an animus had developed, something
mysterious. The hoped-for unity of spirit had vanished, as is clearly
evident in the "Majority Report" published by the Biblical
Research Institute of the General Conference.
The General Conference members of the PGC maintained that they are
"the brethren of experience" to whom Ellen White said all
theological questions should be submitted and whose judgment thereof
should be considered final. But we are perplexed because other
"brethren" of very extended "experience" fully
support positions of the 1888MSC. In fact, at least one General
Conference member of the PGC supports our basic gospel understandings
and rejoices for the existence of the 1888MSC.
The "Majority Report" was prepared by the General
Conference personnel of the PGC in advance of that brief final meeting.
It was not brought to the committee as a whole for a vote. However, the
apparent minority were assured that if they disagreed with the majority
findings, they were at liberty to prepare a "Minority Report"
which would be submitted to the General Conference leaders, and we
understood, would be published alongside the Majority one. This is the
normal procedure with responsible investigating committees (indeed,
dissenting justices on the U. S. Supreme Court regularly publish their
views). World-wide interest in the realities of the 1888 message in the
Seventh-day Adventist church suggests that confidence in church
leadership would require that the minority members of the PGC be heard.
The issues discussed are important. History is being made.
A point-by-point analysis of the
"Disagreement"
items of the Majority Report.
(The introductory 12 "Areas of Agreement" are largely
platitudinous and could have been agreed on just as well on the first
day of the sessions in 1994. All but the last one would be endorsed by
any orthodox Christian church. But that last one appears to cancel the
later negative ones, for it says, "We agree that studying the 'most
precious message' presented by Jones and Waggoner is important."
That is what the 1888MSC pleads for — study! Our very name has "study"
built in. We would want to insert the word "very" important,
because if Ellen White was right to say that the 1888 message was the
"beginning" of the "light" of Revelation 18 and of
the latter rain, it would follow logically that nothing could be more
important to the Seventh-day Adventist Church—and to the world—than
for us together to recover that message, be united in understanding it,
and in proclaiming it to the world).
"Areas With Disagreement"
- The use or misuse of Ellen White's statements about the 1888
message and its history. The 1888MSC have asked only that a fair
anthology of her actual bona fide comments regarding the
message and its history be made available to the church at large.
Her testimony is clear if readers can see it in context. The
1821-page photocopy collection (The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials)
published by the Ellen G. White Estate is valuable for special
scholars, but is difficult to read and expensive for the average
church member to buy. A more concise collection of her endorsements
of the 1888 message is needed. We all agree that the spiritual
condition of the church as a whole is as "lukewarm" now as
it was in the 1888 era. What she said then regarding the value of
the message of Jones and Waggoner is therefore applicable today.
- Applying the primacy of the Bible. We are faulted for
reading the Bible through the eyes of Jones and Waggoner. To this we
reply: Yes, we want to read the Bible — just as it is, the naked
text of Scripture; and present that Bible evidence so all can read
and judge for themselves. Indeed, there are truths in the Bible to
which Jones and Waggoner called our attention, which otherwise we
would not have seen. (They called some things to Ellen White's
attention, too). But what else should Jones and Waggoner do for us
whom "the Lord in His great mercy sent"? If anybody calls
our attention to any Bible truth, we must be grateful and
receive it.
- How much did Ellen White endorse the message of Jones and
Waggoner? We want to be in warm heart-felt unity with our
General Conference and Seminary brethren and sisters. But we must
recognize that no evidence exists that says there are "many
areas in which Ellen White differs with Jones and Waggoner."
While the two were fallible mortals as are we all (Ellen White said she
also was not infallible!), she would be guilty of gross
ineptitude to write over 350 expressions of endorsement if she
disagreed with them in "many areas"! Where, in a
very few instances during the years of her endorsements, she
cautioned or corrected them, they accepted her corrections humbly
and wholeheartedly. Even if the Majority members were to reconsider
and withdraw their word "many" and substitute
"some," still no scholar has to date been able to document
even one area of their mature message about righteousness by
faith that she rejected. If her remarks are read in context, the
picture of wholehearted support emerges clear and bright.
- Historical accuracy. The history is there for all to read
for themselves. Ellen White's judgment as an agent of the gift of
prophecy renders her appraisal as more accurate than any
non-inspired contemporaries. We rest our case with the simple
historical evidence that any reader can observe for himself. Time
can never efface that history or change it. Our denominational
post-1888 history is an exposition of Christ's message to "the
angel of the church of the Laodiceans" (Rev. 3:14-21).
- Corporate repentance. This indeed is the point of greatest
objection, and probably the focal point of the animus directed
against this author on February 8, 2000, who wrote the book, Corporate
Repentance—Plea of the True Witness. The Majority Report says
that "the impression should not be given that Ellen White
called for corporate repentance" (in other words, it's a wrong
idea). But the issue is not did Ellen White "call for corporate
repentance," but does the Lord Jesus Himself call for
it? The Majority Report implies that O A Olsen's leadership did not
"take the same position in regard to Jones and Waggoner as the
Butler/Smith administration," so that leadership after 1888 led
the church in appropriate repentance—which therefore is
unnecessary today.
But Ellen White says the new president elected in 1888 supported the
men who opposed the 1888 message. He "acted as did Aaron in
regard to these men who have been opposed to the work of God ever since
the Minneapolis meeting." He could talk well, but his deeds did not
support his words: "I feel very sorry for Brother Olsen. . . . He
has not acted upon the light given. The case is a mysterious one. . . .
He has ventured on, directly contrary to the light which the Lord has
been giving him. All this confuses his spiritual discernment, and places
him in a relation to the general interest, and wholesome, healthy
advancement of the work, as an unfaithful watchman. . . . He has given
unmistakable evidence that he does not regard the testimonies which the
Lord has seen fit to give His people as worthy of respect, or as of
sufficient weight to influence his course of action."
When she was "exiled" to Australia with his approval she
left manuscripts with him for our leaders in America, rebuking them for
opposition to this "most precious message." To illustrate the
"Aaron" comparison, she had to say, "The President of the
General Conference . . . went directly contrary to the cautions and
warnings given him." Regarding her "exile," she says
"you were willing to have the strong experience and knowledge that
comes from no human source removed from you." She wrote to I. H.
Evans that the new president had "rejected" the trust placed
with him in regard to the 1888 message.
If the rejection of corporate and denominational repentance is based
on leadership repentance in the administration of O A Olsen, thoughtful
people will understand that the call of the Lord Jesus Christ for such
denominational repentance is valid today. This is the underlying issue.
- Universal Legal Justification. During the PGC's sessions,
serious attention was given to what the Son of God accomplished by
His sacrifice. We know that not all on the "majority" side
agree with this apparent disregard of what Paul teaches in Romans
3-6. Again, our focal point of study was expressly said to be the
Bible. To cite Ellen White as in apparent conflict is
impossible. According to Scripture teaching, there are two
consequences of Christ's sacrifice: as "the Saviour of all
men" and as "the Saviour of the world," He gives a
gift to "all men . . . justification of life," this
present life being for "all men" the gift of His grace.
And to those who "believe" He also gives something extra
— eternal life. The quotation from Ellen White says the same, as
do all her writings.
- The "in Christ" Motif. There is a vital
evangelistic truth articulated in this aspect of the 1888 message as
proclaimed by Jones and Waggoner. The sinner must know how God has
totally taken the initiative in his salvation. When the Father put
His arms around Christ at His baptism in Jordan, He also embraced
the human race, adopted them "in Him," made
"all men" "accepted in the Beloved,"
unworthy as we are. In this sense, the entire human race is
"adopted" "in Him." Christ by His
sacrifice has died the second death of "all men" and so
redeemed them.
The world needs to know it! The truth of the third angel's Good News
is not to arouse an egocentric-motivated, fear-response, but one of
gratitude for what Christ has already accomplished and already
given as a gift as surely as Esau was given his birthright. It is unfair
to attribute to the "in Christ" idea the charge of
antinomianism. The sinner's "acceptance" is not what initiates
the process of salvation; it was already accomplished by Christ's
sacrifice. Contrary to the misreading of Romans 5 in the "Adventist
Bible" (The Clear Word), what Christ accomplished on the
cross is not a mere "offer," but in the actual words of Paul
repeated five times, it is a gift given to "all
men" (vss. 15-18).
The "in Christ" truth is consequent on understanding the
work of Christ in the Most Holy Apartment. We see this truth as the
essence of the "most precious message" the Lord sent to us.
This is not an invention of the 1888MSC—it is the message itself in
the original sources, and documented in the 1888MSC publications.
Earnestly, we plead with the General Conference—we do not seek to be
contentious; we want Christ's harmony and unity. We seek only to defend
a glorious Scriptural truth. In its dense darkness the world is
hungering to know it clearly. The Sunday-keeping churches are not proclaiming
it. Surely the General Conference cannot oppose light which "the
Lord in His great mercy sent" us. Surely they should let the people
see that light as He sent it.
- The Nature of Christ. All that can be said in response is
that we must indeed be "careful, exceedingly
careful as to how [we] dwell upon the human nature of Christ."
Careful attention to our published writings on the subject
demonstrates this "exceeding carefulness," more so than
some of the published writings of our brethren on the PGC. For
example, we never say carelessly that Christ "had" a
sinful nature; we insist on the exact inspired language, "He took
on His sinless nature our sinful nature." Again, since
the PGC was enjoined to study the Bible, we submit that
Jones' and Waggoner's writings on the nature of Christ are clearly
supported by Scripture. In fact, certain individual, thoughtful
non-Adventist writers and theologians in recent times are forging
ahead of the General Conference in coming to embrace this Bible
truth as Jones and Waggoner understood it.
- Jones and Waggoner and the Reformers. We have re-read this
comment and find it perplexing. We see salvation in the third
angel's message. The idea that Jones and Waggoner saw no truth on
justification by faith beyond what Luther and Calvin saw is
difficult to substantiate. We earnestly prayed that the Lord might
help us demonstrate to the General Conference that the righteousness
by faith in "the [1888] third angel's message in verity"
is truth beyond what Luther, Calvin, and the Reformers taught, and
greatly beyond what the contemporary Sunday-keeping churches teach
today. But this Majority Report would seem to indicate that we did
not succeed.
- The Old Covenant. We are asked to believe "that the
old covenant . . . is equated with the Torah [Ten Commandments] of
Sinai." Is this not the position taken by former Adventist
minister Dale Ratzlaff and other contemporary anti-Adventist
writers? Ratzlaff is Adventism's new "Canright," the most
assiduous opponent of our denomination. The issue of the two
covenants was one of the most hotly contested truths of the 1888
message; must it remain so today? Despite Ellen White's unequivocal
endorsement (by vision) of the truth of Waggoner's position, it is
here again classified as an area of General Conference "disagreement,"
just as it was a century ago.
- Attitude of criticism. Is there need for extended comment?
Ever since the Holy Spirit has been working in our sinful world, the
possibility has existed of "loyal criticism." Our record
demonstrates more than half a century of unequivocal loyalty to the
organization of the Seventh-day Adventist church and to its
doctrines.
- We have never held a camp
meeting anywhere in the world.
- We have never held a
"conference" in a non-Adventist venue.
- We have spoken in hundreds of
Seventh-day Adventist churches in many lands, but never without an
official invitation.
- We teach and practice loyal
tithe-paying to the organized church.
- We teach the support of the organized
church with offerings.
- For years we have requested the
General Conference to appoint someone to be a member of our board of
directors.
- We welcome General Conference counsel.
- The fact that we have a legal
organization is what other loyal para-church ministries have within
the denomination.
- We have always invited General
Conference criticism or refutation of anything we have ever published,
and seek to dialogue.
- In no way are we in competition with
the organized church. "Conflict
within congregations" occurs when pastors or individuals are
influenced by the General Conference to create contentious opposition
to the essential Good News elements obvious in the 1888 message
itself.
- We "support no activity across
the world" that is in the least detrimental to the objectives of
the organized Seventh-day Adventist Church.
What then is our fault for which we are thus denigrated in this
Report?
We appeal to leaders and members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
to study a message which Ellen White declared to be "most
precious," the "beginning" of the Revelation 18 loud cry
proclamation and initial "showers from heaven of the latter
rain"— which message is fully supported in Scripture.
The Majority Report likens us to John Wesley. His history is said to
be "extremely informative here" with respect to the 1888MSC.
Anyone who has read history knows that the reason why John Wesley
preached in the streets and in the open fields is because the Anglican
hierarchy closed the doors of their churches against him. He saved
England from the horrors of the French Revolution, in spite of his
church leadership's opposition to him. He died a clergyman loyal to the
Church of England. We pray that the Lord may give us grace to emulate
his loyal ministry.
- The church and justification by faith. We would ask with
deep respect, in what way can it be truthfully said that we
"differ" with the official statements cited? It would seem
reasonable that the General Conference should wish us well for
emphasizing in an effective heart-warming way what those statements
say.
Regarding the "Observations." Never have we said that
the Church is "proclaiming a false gospel." What we have said
is quite different. There are elements of the gospel that the Lord
"sent" to us in 1888 that have been "kept away" from
our people and from the world; what was rejected by leadership and
"kept away" from the church and the world was the message God
intended would prepare that generation to meet the final issues
and to be ready for the coming of Christ. The church is not preaching
a false gospel; it desperately needs the enrichment that "the
Lord sent" in the 1888 truths. Time has continued longer than was
then expected in order to give us opportunity to repent and to recover
what has been "kept away" from the world, and now to give it
to the world.
And in reality, who has called for repentance? Not we, but
"the True Witness" to the "angel of the church of the
Laodiceans." What we say or think is of no moment. It is He who
says that "angel" of the church feels "rich and increased
with goods, in need of nothing," to whom He says (not we!),
"Be zealous, therefore, and repent."
Re the "Appeal." Evidence is clear that we are not in
any way working "outside the organized Church." We are
very much (thank God!) a part of the Church. Like John Wesley, we choose
to minister within the organization; it is others who try to force us
"outside" by publishing misleading judgments about us. But we
remain loyal, trusting in God.
We appeal to the General Conference: please take the initiative to
"promote harmony in both doctrine and relationships" with
those in the church who sense a hunger and thirst for a clearer
understanding of righteousness by faith in "the third angel's
message in verity." The Holy Spirit will never cease to plead with
the General Conference and with ourselves to come into genuine
heart-unity and to "be of one mind" (Phil. 2:2). Such unity is
not only possible (contrary to some pessimistic opinions), but it will
be certain in the providence of God. May it be soon!