Fifty Years Ago

Fifty Years ago on July 11, two missionaries still in their early thirties, and on furlough from Africa, sent a letter with a shocking thesis to the General Conference Committee assembled for the General Conference session of 1950 in San Francisco.  That four page letter and its aftermath have transformed the Adventist theological landscape in the following half century even while its central thesis was being repeatedly rejected by the church.

Even today, in the age of shock jocks, and frankness in speech that would have shocked earlier generations, that fateful four page letter by Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short that launched a thousand books and articles, loses none of its thunder:
 

Dear Brethren,

On this day of fasting and prayer, we as a people are to seek not to God of Ekron, but to the God of truth, the author and Finisher of our faith.  The President's stirring address last night, calling upon us to guard the faith once delivered to the saints, and to speak forthrightly in defense of it, presents a challenge.  With this in mind, it is imperative that we know exactly what it is that should be  guarded, for certainly there is great confusion in our ranks today.

This confusion was evident in the "Christ-centered preaching" urged upon us repeatedly in the Ministerial Association meetings of the past four days. These meetings were supposed to set the stage for a mighty revival among God's people at this General Conference session. This Christ-centered preaching" is expected by its proponents, to bring in a great reformation among Seventh-day Adventist workers the world around.

No one for a moment could disparage the preaching of the true Christ as the center and substance of the three angels' messages. However, in the confusion, it has been discerned that much of this so-called "Christ-centered preaching" is in reality merely anti-Christ centered preaching. It vitally affects the outcome of this General Conference session. To make such a statement to the General Conference Committee sounds fantastic. But startling things are not unexpected by the church in the last days.

...In the sermons and exhortations of the past four days, no clear distinction whatever has been made between the Christ of Seventh-day Adventism, and this false Christ. While lip service has been paid to the preaching of our distinctive doctrines, they have been openly and repeatedly disparaged as secondary, this "Christ" being considered primary. We are thus left with a vague mysticism permeating Seventh-day Adventism. If followed t its logical ends, it can only bring in a false, spurious type of "Christian" experience, calculated instead to deceive the very elect, but which will not hasten the finishing of the work committed to us. It is a modern counterpart of an ancient call to Israel in the wilderness to return to Egypt. Should not this matter, dear brethren and elders, be thoroughly investigated by men capable of discerning between the wiles of the devil and the solemn work of the true Holy Spirit?

Is it not true that our fasting, praying, and seeking for the outpouring of the Spirit will be tragically hindered until this matter is clarified? The most earnest intercessory prayer offered unwittingly to Baal will not avail Israel one drop of heaven-sent rain, in this time of spiritual drought. Is it not true that the "Christ" of these modern Spiritualistic actors is in reality Israel's ancient enemy, Baal, under a new and more highly refined guise?

...An unequivocally plain prophecy occurs in Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 467, 468, that as a consequence of not discerning the light of righteousness by faith revealed in 1888, "many" amongst us would be deceived into virtual Baal worship.

This modern Baal worship and highly refined Spiritualism constitutes a spurious and counterfeit species of righteousness by faith. This revival of "Christ centered preaching", being practically identical with the "gospel" of modern Babylon, is not a true revival such as Jones and Waggoner and sister White brought to us 62 years ago.

This spurious faith in Christ can never prepare the remnant church to stand in the day of God, nor is it a distinctive message which will lighten the earth with the glory of God. Followed to its logical end, it will rob us of the distinctive message God has given us for the world. It is a call back to Egypt.

...Our dear people, could they voice their unconscious desires, would thus appeal to this highest Committee of authority, gathered at this world session in 1950 to clarify this highly important matter of difference between the true God and the false, the true Christ and the anti-Christ, the true Holy Spirit and Spiritualism, and true Christian experience and false supposition. No matter before this gathering can possibly be as weighty with serious import as this.  (Faith on Trial, p. 39-43)

The first consequence of that initial rejection was the hasty writing of the 204 page manuscript that became 1888 Re-examined. Although it saved their credentials and secured their return to Africa as missionaries, the document was banned and put their names under a cloud until this day.  The church's attempt to ban it did not prevent it from getting into the hands of the Adventist underground, and firebrands like the Brinsmeads and Hudson used it with great effect to trouble Israel. By the time Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short finally felt ethically free to publish it in 1987, righteousness by faith (RBF) and 1888 had become the most controversial subject and year in Adventism since 1844 and the "shut door."

Like an invisible glacier that scours the countryside, the authors left their mark even in bastions of rejection. Nobody fought against the Wieland-Short thesis harder than the White Estate.  But 1888 Re-examined forced their subsequent publications to be fortified against the onslaught of 1888 Re-examined. A case in point is Testimonies to Ministers. First published in 1923, with a second edition issued in 1944, it contains more E. White counsel regarding 1888 than any other of her books. But the third edition published in 1962, the first of the post Wieland-Short era, suddenly sported a 22 page Historical Forward, a 14 page appendix, and a five page preface not found in the first two editions. Most of the extra pages were apparently intended to have the effect of counteracting the Wieland-Short thesis. Page xi of the preface proclaims "These notes will aid the reader in ascertaining correctly the intent of the author in the messages here presented." But after having done just that, the Historical Forward proclaims on page xxxvi that "It is not the work of the custodians of the Ellen G. White Writings to explain or interpret the counsels which have been given."

Selected Messages, Book Three, was issued in 1980. In it, there is a collection of E.G.W. statements pertaining to the Minneapolis Conference of 1888. As in the 1962 edition of Testimonies to Ministers, the White Estate did not feel free to let readers encounter E.G.W. statements pertaining to 1888 without their guidance. Seven pages of their commentary is inserted as a preface to characterize E.G.W. negative comments on this historical event as merely "incidental"and qualified.

Arthur White, in his biography of her mother, Ellen G. White, The Lonely Years, 1876-1891, published in 1983, takes many shots at the Wieland- Short thesis; the most explicit of which is "The concept that the General Conference, and thus the denomination, rejected the message of righteousness by faith in 1888 is without foundation and was not projected until forty years after the Minneapolis meeting, and thirteen years after Ellen White's death. Contemporary records yield no suggestion of denominational rejection. There is no E.G. White statement anywhere that says this was so" (Pg. 396).

Beginning in 1962, appeared a series of apologetic books that appear to have been commissioned by the church to combat the Wieland-Short thesis. By Faith Alone, Norval Pease, 1962;  Through Crisis to Victory 1888-1901, A.V. Olson, 1966; Movement of Destiny, Leroy Froom, 1971; From 1888 to Apostasy: The Case of A.T. Jones, George Knight, 1987; Angry Saints, George Knight, 1989; The Nature of Christ, Roy Adams, 1994; A User Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message, George Knight, 1998.
 

The Prelude

What circumstances provoked these two young missionaries from Africa attending their first General Conference session to write such an audacious letter, and back it up with a two hundred page manuscript less than two months later?

Robert J. Wieland was born in Iowa in 1917 to strict Lutheran parents. His electrician father was a strict Sabbatarian that wouldn't even buy gas on Sunday. The family moved to Florida to get away from the cold winters. He was in public high school but attending Presbyterian Sunday school when he read himself into the church through private Bible study in 1929 as a sophomore. Since he played the violin and was a good student, there was constant pressure to participate in Saturday activities which he resisted.  Upon graduation, he entered Columbia Union College where he was a fellow student with Donald K. Short, but only a casual acquaintance at that time.

It was during his junior year that he first encountered Waggoner's Glad Tidings, a book whose teachings would change his life. In a theology class, an Elder Lindsay Semmens made the claim that John Ford, an Australian professor, did not understand the two covenants. RJW asked, "well then, who does?" The professor referred him to a book called Glad Tidings. The professor only had one personal copy, but he put it in the library for students to read. RJW read it and was impressed. He took his type writer into the library and copied key chapters. That is where he also learned about what righteousness by faith meant. He carried those type written pages around with him after that.

He graduated CUC in 1939 and entered the ministry in the Florida Conference in 1940. In 1944, he was called  to the Kakoro Mission in East Africa, and arrived in 1945. He was to spend a total of 24 years in Africa, though not consecutively. He returned from Africa for the last time in 1984.

Donald K.Short (DKS) was born on January 2, 1915 in Fort Wayne, Indiana.  His family was not religious. His father died before he was two, and he only remembers his step father. But he lived much of the time with his grandmother, and does not recall much religious influence from them. he only connection his family had with Adventist were a great aunt and great uncle named John C. Carr who were Adventists in the Battle Creek area.  His great uncle took a well known photograph of a gathering of SDA leaders.

At the time of his conversion, he was a sophomore in Daytona Beach and going to public school. Elder Dudley held some evangelistic tent meetings that impressed him. In those days, there were the usual posters of the beasts of Revelation, etc. He was baptized in 1930, and subsequently transferred to church schools for the rest of his education. He finished high school at Forest Lake Academy, went to Southern Junior College, and then went on to Columbia Union College, where he supported himself by operating a private printing business, and involved himself in evangelistic efforts.

Upon graduating in 1940, he was appointed as a missionary to Africa and that fall sailed to Mbeya, Tanganyika. He remained in East Africa until 1960, serving in various capacities including mission director, and publishing house manager. Then he was transferred to South Africa where he served until he retired in 1978 after 37 years in Africa.

RJW was at first very depressed and disillusioned when he got to Africa, because of rampant sexual promiscuity by native workers, and the constant lying that took place to conceal it. Many of the church school teachers were sleeping with their students. It was completely out of control, and he was encouraged by some experienced missionaries to just accept it as part of their culture, but he could not accept that. Then he found a solution to the problem in the chapters of Glad Tidings that he had brought with him.  That 1888 Righteousness by Faith (RBF) included an understanding of the nature of Christ which was completely human, including sexuality. That meant that Christ had to conquer sexual desire also. Since Christ was empowered to conquer sexual desire, and was our Savior, it implied that the Holy Spirit would also empower believers to control sexual passions also.

This was at first a shocking idea to the natives, but it also made Christ someone they could now identify with. RJW concluded that the 1888 theological package contained in Glad Tidings was the key to the Adventist message, and built his ministry around that.  This included a non-dispensational unified understanding of the covenants, the complete humanness of Christ which made Him our Example in every way, and the unconditional gift of salvation to every human at the cross, the objective gift being irrespective of works on man's part.

In 1949, he returned on furlough aboard the SS Llandovery Castle with D.K.S., who had been in Africa since 1940. The plan was to study at the seminary during the winter and spring of ‘49-50, and attend the General Conference as delegates from Africa just prior to returning to their respective mission posts in Africa. During the three weeks they sailed together, they discovered that they shared similar views on most things and forged a close friendship. When they arrived at the Seminary, Short took classes in church history, while Wieland took theology classes.
 

Expulsion from the Seminary

RJW took a class on RBF from George Vandeman. He was impressed at first, but became alarmed when Vandeman kept using analogies which implied that effort was required to obtain RBF. An example he remembers was that of a person who put a coin in the slot of a gate and waited for it to open. Nothing happened. Finally, someone, said, "You have to push!"  So the man pushed and entered. Vandeman thought that was analogous to salvation. It was not enough to drop in the coin of faith; one also had to "push" to get in.

A number of similar illustrations made it clear to RJW that Vandeman was teaching an RBF that also required the "push" of works, which was different from the 1888 version that he had learned from Waggoner, and which had been the foundation of his ministry in Africa. After discussing the matter with Vandeman and getting no satisfactory answers, he went right to the President, D.E. Rebok, without talking to anyone else.

When he had finished telling Rebok his concerns, RJW was shocked when Rebok told him that he must leave the seminary immediately. Rebok drove him straight over to his seminary apartment and began helping him check out. He even went so far as to check to make sure that the dishes he took did not belong to the apartment. Mrs. W. was of course in shock and horrified at what had happened, as was RJW.

When asked what he had said to make Rebok take such a drastic and urgent action, RJW insists he made no demands, nor said anything severe or personal; just his observation that Vandeman's RBF did not agree with Waggoner's RBF. At the time, he did not know anything about 1888, and assumed that Waggoner's view was accepted because it had been recommended to him by his professor at CUC.
 

The Quest Begins

After RJW was already packed, his curiosity got the best of him, so he decided to do one thing before he left town. He drove over to the White Estate and tried to find out what Ellen White had said concerning 1888 and E.J Waggoner. Arthur White was away traveling, so D.E. Robinson was in charge. When RJW asked to see Ellen White's 1888 comments, Robinson told him that was controversial, so access was not usually given. He asked for RJW's credentials. When he replied that he was General Conference delegate and missionary from Africa, and that he knew Robinson's son Virgil, Robinson relented and gave him the file he wanted.

As soon as RJW began reading EGW statements about 1888, and her endorsements of Waggoner, he knew he had discovered a scandal of major proportions that seemed to explain his experience. He got permission to bring up his type writer, and began copying as many letters as he could until the White Estate closed. He left his type writer there and came in again the next morning to continue. But Robinson told him that a mistake had been made, and that he could not have the same file back. He was offered another file containing the documents for Testimonies to Ministers. Since he already had a copy of the book, he declined the offer and left.

This was a critical period in his life, he says. Despite the fact that things seemed so clear to him, his expulsion from the Seminary had been such a traumatic and demoralizing event that he would have given up if it had not been for the support of two men. Having come to respect DKS's judgement and logic, he presented his evidence to DKS, and received complete endorsement of his conclusions. This gave him the confidence to continue his search for evidence to support his conviction.

In the winter of that year, he also noticed Vandeman's review of a book by a Methodist named E. Stanley Jones, a non-SDA preacher, in the February Review.  RJW felt that E. Stanley Jones views on RBF were tinged with spiritualism, and incompatible with the idea that it was the "third angel's message in verity". He wrote to the Ministerial Association as well as the GC President expressing his concerns. He admits that in general, his messages were not well received, although he did receive a letter from President McElhaney that seemed to express genuine appreciation for his concern. But then he received two letters from W.A.Spicer that were strongly supportive.

"Thank God you saw the evil in this book. I regard him as doing about the worst work of any modern religious agent... If others would protest as you have done, it might do some good."

In the summer of that year, he says, Spicer proceeded to write an article in the review expressing those concerns. That validation by Spicer, retired GC President from 1922-30, and one of the most respected leaders in the church at the time, he says, along with that of his friend DKS, was crucial to his self confidence in that winter of discontent. Without that support, he says, he probably would have thrown in the theological towel and just gone along with the crowd after that, and in the process, become the most boring minister that ever lived.

Instead of studying at the seminary as he had planned, he spent that winter in Florida researching the 1888 history and message and preparing a manuscript which seventeen years later was published as In Search of the Cross. Having been shut out of the White Estate, he thought of another plan to get at Ellen White's 1888 material. He began to call and write to retired ministers who had known Ellen White personally to ask about their correspondence with Ellen White. Most were eager to help him, and he soon collected a stack of letters (he moves his hands about six inches apart vertically) dealing with the 1888 issue. Those letters, he said, became the basis for what would become 1888 Re-examined. Although Wieland was no longer at the Seminary, Short began helping him by checking out materials from the White Estate and Seminary that he needed. These were mailed to RJW in Florida and then returned.

Despite RJW's unexpected detour, both men arrived in San Francisco on July 6 to attend the G.C. session as delegates from Africa. Wieland was 33 and Short 35. At that session, Elder McElhany retired as President, and W.H. Branson was elected as his successor. Elder L.K. Dickson declared in the Sabbath worship service preceding the session that "we must make a right turn at this session where we took a wrong turn in 1888." There was also a public announcement that if any delegate had a burden on his heart, they should express it. The convergence of these two proclamations in conjunction with Wieland's recent experience seemed a providential sign compelling them to write a letter to the GC Committee. The rest is history.
 

Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short Today

Today, fifty years later, long after their original dialogue partners have passed away, Elders Wieland and Short still energetically campaign on behalf of their original convictions, hopeful that somehow the corporate rejection that they believe occurred in 1888 and again in 1950, can be reversed. Elder Wieland has been away from home every weekend on speaking engagements ever since the writer contacted him three weeks ago. He graciously agreed to mail copies of valuable documents they have accumulated in their fifty year odyssey, upon which this report is based.

When the writer finally caught up with them on the evening of February 7, 2000, they both had flown in to Loma Linda, and were checking into the Loma Linda Motel for the final meeting of the G.C. sponsored Primacy of the Gospel Committee that was to be held on the following day in the Drayson building. Before the evening was over, the other members of the 1888 Message Study Committee (MSC) also checked in and gathered in Wieland's room for a chat.

Elder Wieland is now 83, and his partner Don Short just turned 85 on January 2.  Between them, they have spent 61 years as missionaries in Africa. They have now had serious dialogue with seven G.C Presidents, from Spicer (who by 1950 was retired) to Folkenberg. Both men have made the transition from the typewriter to the computer age and are still prolific readers and writers. (Prior to this meeting, the writer exchanged a number of messages by e-mail with both of them.) Both now have snow white hair, but Short seems to have kept most of his, whereas Wieland has lost some snow off the top of the mountain. They are up to date on all the books that have come out lately having an impact on RBF - 1888 and write their criticism of each one.

The fifty years of rejection does not seem to have embittered them toward the church, and they remain loyal to, and respectful of the organization, some might say, to a fault. To this day, neither they, nor the 1888 Message Study Committee (MSC), which grew up around their ministry, will accept any tithe money on the principle that they cannot ethically compete with the God's church that they firmly believe will ultimately finish The Work in glory.  Nobody reading through their correspondence with the church and its designated scholars over the last 50 years can fail to marvel at how they have managed to balance their uncompromising logic with charity and humility in receiving counsel that at times was brutal and derogatory.

Wieland still wore a neck brace, the only visible concession to the serious car accident he and his wife Grace suffered while in Kentucky on August 22 of this year. His wife, who remained at home in Meadow Vista, California, broke both legs above the knee in that same accident. He stands as straight as an arrow and walks with the easy, confident grace of an athlete. He took off his brace immediately upon getting into his room, and laid it on a shelf.  When other members of the MSC arrived and drop in to visit, however, Wieland once got up to model his neck brace for them and joked that it gave him an advantage on the airplane, because they gave him any seat he wanted. There is much laughing and joking as each member arrives. It is evident that each member of the MSC adores being in the company of the two octogenarians, and vice versa.

Elder Short stands about 5'6" and seems three inch to four inches shorter than Wieland. While Short also appears in good health, and walks normally, he admitted that he was happy to accept the airline's offer to take him to the plane in a wheel chair, since it was quite a distance. This is mentioned only because that is the only concession to age that was noticed the entire evening. The writer made the mistake of referring to him as "doctor" upon first meeting him and received a stern lecture in which that title was denied.

Although both men were frank and open, they were hesitant to disclose personal information, lest it detract or distract from their mission. The writer did not press them for what was not offered. Wieland and Short both say their wives, Grace and Garnette, respectively, are not theologians, but are supportive. Grace has in the past typed many documents. Wieland has two sons and a daughter. One son is a medical doctor in Laguna Nigel, and is a graduate of Loma Linda Medical school. Another son works in workman's compensation. His daughter is a church school teacher in California. None are active in their fathers projects. Short has one son and a daughter. His son is a minister and is involved in promoting his father's cause.

There was only one chair in the room, which the two ministers insisted the writer use. Wieland sat on the bed leaning against the headboard for a two and a half hour chat about history, theology, and logic. Short sat on the wooden chest at the foot of the bed until after 10:00 p.m. despite the fact that he had flown in from North Carolina and was on Eastern Time. The writer never had to repeat a question all evening, and neither Wieland or Short ever were stumped for a date, or a name. When the session was adjourned at about 10:30, Brian Schwartz and his wife Lydia, Sidney Sweet, and Lloyd Knecht, were sitting on the bed, or floor and contributing to the discussion. Lloyd Knecht seemed to be about 60, but the others seemed to be in their 30's.
 

The 1888 Message Study Committee

Shortly after Elder Wieland returned from Africa for the last time in 1984, he received a phone call from Helen Smith, who had been a young secretary in the General Conference offices in 1950 when Wieland and Short had sent them 16 copies of 1888 Re-examined for study. Somehow she had gained access to the restricted document and had been extremely moved by it. She asked Elder Wieland if he would come and tell her and her friends about the 1888 message. There were about 125 people at that first meeting in 1985. They have had annual meetings since then, each time at an SDA facility. The 1888 Message Study Committee grew out of that group, and now has 24 board members and publishes a newsletter with a circulation of 15,000. It also publishes books, including 1888 Re-examined, which was published in 1987. Six members of that group have assembled to attend the tenth and last General Conference sponsored Primacy of the Gospel Committee meetings.

Since 1950, this is the fifth hearing RJW and DKS have had with the General Conference or its authorized designees. The first four were in 1950, 1958, 1964-72, 1973-75. Each of the four hearings resulted in ultimate rejection, although the last time around Elder Pierson was very sympathetic, Wieland says, until Desmond Ford changed his mind as a result of the Palmdale meetings in 1976.

When asked what he hopes will come out of this series of meetings that has not already happened in his fifty year dialogue with the G.C., Wieland admits that after fifty years, he is still optimistic enough to hope for acceptance and corporate repentance, but at this point will gladly settle for a cessation of hostilities so they can preach without interference.

The Logic of 1888 Re-examined

In preparing this piece, the writer read through nearly 25 years of correspondence Wieland-Short had with the G.C. and Leroy Froom, and analyzed the replies Wieland-Short made to each of their detractors, from J.I Robison in 1950, to Roy Adams and George Knight in the 1990s. The shocking thesis that launched their public theological careers in 1950 cannot be separated from its logic. The fifty year running theological battle between them and defenders of the denomination seems primarily an unacknowledged battle between two incompatible systems of logic rather than a battle over history and theology as such.

From the beginning to the present, Wieland and Short have been consistent and open about the logic they have employed, although it became apparent during the interview on February 7 that they were not conscious of it as such, because they know of no other. Although they have expressed it throughout their writings, the clearest expression of it can be found, perhaps, in their correspondence with Leroy Froom. To put their logic in contrast with Froom's, it is best to begin with Froom. On 12/4/64 Froom sent them a letter apparently intended to intimidate Wieland into capitulating on his conclusions, but demonstrates only that Froom does not understand the exegetical gulf that separates him from Wieland:

"...Is it wise or safe, Brother Wieland, for you to continue to pit your personal views against the findings of a group of thoughtful scholars and devoted leaders – including men like A.G. Daniells, A.W. Spalding, L.H. Christian, and A.V. Olson, and possibly I could come within that category.  And there are various others that need not be named. Their conclusions are all quite similar.

...I too was asked by responsible leaders at headquarters, and by the administration leaders at the University, to study the full, broader, historical evidence, including Mrs. White's total testimony (emphasis added). I too have been at this a long time. Not only have I had access to E.G. White vault sources, but to the expert reference help of R. L. Odom who, as official indexer, probably has the greatest knowledge of an living man of her book material content. Miss Bessie Mount has made a similar study of the E.G. White periodical articles. And Arthur White has had a lifetime acquaintance with the unpublished testimonies, and intimate knowledge of all the special Manuscript Indexes and material. I have had the full benefit of their joint help in my research.

These, I submit, constitute a formidable group of experts. And I too was directed to go to the bottom of these facts with all these full facilities available. But added to all the aformentioned sources, I have the additional eye-witness reports of 24 of the personal participants in the ‘88 Conference, secured back in 1930. No other person has had all of this at his finger tips. These were advantages you did not possess, back when you worked out your thesis.

I too must go on record as believing that you, with access only to part of the facts, and investigating only for a relatively brief period, came to unsound and defective conclusions that have caused agitation rather than enlightenment, and have brought confusion instead of clarification.

...There is another point to consider. Ere long the full, documented story of the 1888 episode will doubtless be put into print. And unless you have modified your presentation, you may find yourself in a most unenviable position. The contrast will be marked.

...Please understand my purpose and concern. I would save you from pending trouble, for I am interested in you."

The key phrase in all of Froom's paternalistic bluster is "...including Mrs. White's total testimony" (emphasis added). By inference, we can conclude that Froom's logic is inductive in nature. Inductive logic is the logic of science, as opposed to mathematics and theology, which are deductive in nature. Inductive logic forbids any explicit presuppositions about the real world except the underlying principle of a continuity or uniformity in the universe. Inductive logic reaches its conclusions based on patterns discovered in collected sensory data.

The inductive leap itself consists of making generalizations from specific instances. The leap from the specific to the general is justified by the aforementioned assumption that there is continuity in the universe. Thus the data observed is assumed to be similar to data which one has not observed. However, induction is logically precluded from ever reaching a final conclusion because of the impossibility of ever including in its analysis all the sensory data that may possibly exist on any given subject.

Since the logic of induction cannot allow explicit presuppositions (Ellen White's pronouncement cannot be assumed true), Ellen Whites testimony is merely "more data" to be included in one's analysis, to be weighed along with the accounts of others. Since the certainty of inductive logic is limited by incomplete data, Froom boasts of including Ellen White's total testimony. More is better.

The Wieland and Short reply of 12/6/64 shows an entirely different system of logic:

"... Insofar as we know our own hearts, we want to understand and accept any light the Lord has for us. Our whole understanding of the 1888 episode of our history and its aftermath is based entirely on numerous Spirit of Prophecy statements that we are acquainted with. We profess to know nothing more on the matter than has been recorded in the writings of Ellen G. White. The material available to us in 1950 has been augmented over the years, and further published releases from the White Estate have, we feel, confirmed the basic premise of our manuscript. We would be glad to see the E. G. White statements that you have that you feel alter our premise. We believe that we are duty bound to stand by the inspired viewpoint as expressed in Sister White's statements. We further believe that if all her statements in the Vault dealing with the 1888 history were to be compiled and made available to our workers, the present confusion and agitation would be settled once for all.

...We stand ready to consider any evidence from the messenger of the Lord that would modify the above view which we expressed to the brethren in 1950. We are ready to consider the opinions of any eye-witnesses or denominational students an leaders, and to give their opinions serious study, provided that we are free to hold to E.G. White testimony as above that of her contemporaries or historians if and where discrepancy occurs."

The key sentences in their reply are: "We profess to know nothing more on the matter than has been recorded in the writings of Ellen G. White. ...We believe that we are duty bound to stand by the inspired viewpoint as expressed in Sister White's statements... We are ready to consider the opinions of any eye-witnesses or denominational students and leaders, and to give their opinions serious study, provided that we are free to hold to E.G. White testimony as above that of her contemporaries or historians if and where discrepancy occurs."

These sentences indicate clearly that the logic of Wieland and Short is quintessentially deductive in nature. Whereas Froom merely includes Ellen White statements in his data base, Wieland and Short profess to know "nothing more" than Ellen White statements on the subject. Contrary to inductive logic, deductive logic not only allows, but demands explicit presuppositions as premises or starting points from which to begin an analysis. Those premises may not be challenged, and sensory data is not even relevant.

In mathematics, for example, one cannot prove that 1 + 1 = 2 by measuring anything. In fact, any attempt to prove it by measuring may prove just the opposite, because it is unlikely that any two objects in the world are exactly identical except in an abstract sense.  In mathematics, 1 + 1 = 2 by definition. Anyone who wishes to challenge that assumption is simply departing from "the faith" (of mathematics).

In the same sense, Wieland and Short equate Ellen White proclamations or assertions about 1888 with the history of 1888 and feel duty bound to do so. To do otherwise would be to cease being an Adventist. Other eye-witness accounts of the same event are accepted only if they corroborate her account, but rejected if there is a discrepancy.  Furthermore, since they assume that she cannot contradict herself, it is not necessary to see all that she wrote. It is only necessary that they have one clear statement on any given matter; the rest must necessarily be redundant or an expansion of what she has already said.

From their perspective, anyone wishing to use a different system of logic is simply departing from the faith of Seventh-day Adventists. Although many may quarrel with the particular premise that Wieland and Short start with, all theology except for the higher critical variety, operates on the same principle, though each theologian may start with different premises (See, for example Rick Rice's Reason and the Contours of Faith, Chapter 3).

Froom's reply to Wieland on 12/21/64, shows that he either cannot understand, or is unwilling to admit that he and Wieland are employing different logical systems:

"...I can see that I have thus far failed in my attempted good offices. I wish that someone could break through the barrier of your seeming unwillingness to see. You would then have a much happier life, renewed confidence, and a new outlook. I feel sincerely sorry for you. The Elijah role of "I only" is not an inspiring one, either for yourself or others...

...Think not that you are alone in making the declarations of the Spirit of Prophecy the ultimate test. But others of us insist on having all pertinent E.G. White evidence in order to get a true, balanced, and consistent view.  Any other procedure, I firmly believe, results in a distorted understanding, and in trouble. That, it seems, has been your difficulty."

Instead of recognizing and challenging Wieland's differing logic, he claims to be playing by the same rules, only doing a much better job of it. But the notion of "balancing" all pertinent Ellen White evidence in order to get a "true, balanced and consistent view", is inductive in nature. It is appropriately used by a judge or jury in considering conflicting testimony in a criminal trial.

By contrast, one does not need to "balance" or weigh statements in a syllogistic (deductive) reasoning problem, which Wieland and Short consider this to be. Each clear Ellen White statement stands on its own, and cannot contradict another. Statements by non-inspired people, regardless of their office, are just "noise" to be filtered out if they contradict Ellen White's statements.

Furthermore, Froom's earlier use of the phrase " including Mrs. White's... testimony" has already logically  contradicted his "me too" claim expressed here ("...you are not alone in making the declarations of the Spirit of Prophecy the ultimate test"). One does not merely "include" the evidence one considers to be the ultimate test.

Although Movement of Destiny did not mention the authors by name, there was no doubt Froom had Wieland and Short in mind when on pages 357 and 358, he called for a confession before the church from those who had falsely charged the church with rejection of RBF in 1888 and thereby preventing the Latter Rain from falling:

"...Echoers still persist, maintaining that the leaders of the Movement at the time (1888) "rejected" the message of Righteousness by Faith, and thereby incurred the continuing disfavor of God.

And along with that assumption goes a contention that until and unless the Movement as a whole today - nearly eighty years later--repents as a body in sackcloth and ashes for the sins of "some" who, back at that faithful time, did definitely reject the Minneapolis Message at and following 1888, the smile and benediction of God will never rest upon the Adventist people and movement, and its message will never be consummated under present conditions... In other words, such maintain that the Loud Cry and Latter Rain will never be visited upon us until retroactive penitence requirement is first met through some acknowledgment and action...

...If the charge be not true, (as Froom believed he had proved) an explicit confession is due the church today by the promulgators of a misleading charge, first of all against the names of the post-1888 leadership, now all sleeping. It is likely due those in the church today who have been confused and misled by such an allegation. In the ultimate, then, it actually constitutes an impeachment of the dead. This is a gravely serious matter."

When Wieland and Short responded to that challenge in November of 1972 with a paper entitled, "An Explicit Confession... Due the Church," they would proceed to hoist Froom by his own (..."you are not alone in making the Spirit of Prophecy the ultimate test") logical petard.

An Explicit Confession... Due the Church

Their November, 1972 sixty four page pamphlet with the above title begins by carefully outlining the history of their dialogue with the church that culminated in Froom's challenge. Then Wieland and Short begin their response to Movement of Destiny by reminding Froom of the logical ground rules he has agreed to:

"The two authors of 1888 Re-examined and the author of Movement of Destiny agree that "decisive spirit of Prophecy testimony... constitutes the determining factor" in arriving at the truth of this matter as stated on page 358. Therefore what must be settled is the inclusion or exclusion of "decisive Spirit of Prophecy testimony" that is vital and relevant. By leaving out certain key testimony it becomes impossible to understand correctly the meaning of post-1888 Seventh-day Adventist history... The church will insist on seeing and must see that "decisive Spirit of Prophecy testimony."

The two authors then proceed to unleash pages and pages of excerpts from devastating Ellen White statements Froom has conveniently excluded in his 700 page tome which, if accepted at face value (which their deduction logic requires), appear to contradict every point that Froom has established inductively through the cumulative testimony of (non-inspired) church leaders. These statements were presented more fully in 1888 Re-examined, and will not be reproduced here. When they are done presenting, the authors explain their dilemma:

"After reading these statements from the testimonies of Ellen G. White, one can begin to sense something of the problem faced by the authors of 1888 Re-examined. On the one hand, Movement of Destiny, with General Conference endorsement, calls from us "an explicit confession" to the Church apologizing for saying that there was a leadership rejection of the very message which was intended by the Lord to prepare a people for His coming eighty years ago. On the other hand, our conscience is bound by the clear testimony of the Spirit of Prophecy.

Common sense forces the conclusion that if "we" had accepted the 1888 message for what it truly was, the "beginning" of the Latter Rain and Loud Cry, we would not be in the world today. The Church would not be faced with an ever-expanding world task as yet unfinished.

Ellen G. White does not contradict her own testimony. No word has been found in her published works nor will such in the future be found in any of the unpublished writings that contradicts the plain import of the statements cited in this paper. Such does not exist. The authors of Through Crisis to Victory and Movement of Destiny have thoroughly combed the collection of unpublished writings in the vault, and have found nothing. This is now obvious from reading their exhaustive treatises on the subject.

...We earnestly require, "Where is the Ellen G. White ‘testimony' that persuades ‘all others'?" Any "testimony that contradicts Ellen G. White's own clear words is a fiction. As authors we do not want to be guilty of "sheer stubbornness." We choose to be loyal to Christ and His truth. The publication of Movement of Destiny has placed before us a dilemma completely unprecedented in Seventh-day Adventist history."

Their dilemma is as follows: Wieland and Short must take Froom's demand for a confession seriously because they assume it comes with the full backing of the General Conference, which they acknowledge as God's highest authority. Furthermore, they insist on identifying with the church, rather than seeing themselves as separate from it. On the other hand, Ellen White statements and their logic, which Froom himself has endorsed, forces them to conclude that their thesis is correct, and Froom is wrong.  So they must confess, but to what?

Their solution was to make a Daniel-like seven fold confession on behalf of "we," the church, which is summarized below. We confess to:

1. ...the truth that we are in a Laodicean state thinking we are rich and increased with knowledge regarding the gospel and RBF, when in reality we are blind and naked.

2. ...to a brighter hope than this view affords.

3. ...that the words of Rev. 3:19, "Be zealous and repent" is a call for denominational repentance.

4. ...that a repentance on the part of this generation for the failures of a past generation is in order.

5. ...complete confidence in the triumph of the SDA church and its eventual repentance.

6. ...hearty appreciation for the glorious truths of the 1888 message as contained in out of print sources.

7. ...being the least and most unworthy of all the Lord's servants.

The authors gave copies only to G.C. President Pierson and Vice President Neal Wilson. Pierson considered their response so devastating, says Wieland, that he asked that it not be circulated lest it kill Froom, who was not well. The authors complied, and Froom, who passed away in 1974, was apparently never allowed to see it.

The Jones-Waggoner 1888 Message, according to the 1888 MSC

So what is the actual theological content of the 1888 Message that Wieland and Short have been promoting for half a century? According to them, most people who think they understand it, misunderstand it. The writer used primarily two sources to answer this question. One is a booklet called What is the 1888 Message? prepared by the 1888 MSC for the Primacy of the Gospel Committee, published sometime last year. The other is In Search of the Gospel--We Believe, written by the same, in 1996. The salient features of that message seem to be as follows:

It Was Unique

The RBF of 1888 was unique, and not merely the recovery of that which the Reformers had hundreds of years ago. Neither was it the Roman brand of RBF against which the Reformers protested. Jones and Waggoner saw that genuine righteousness by faith since 1844 is an experience ministered from the Most Holy Apartment. It is not concerned primarily with preparing people to die (as is the case with conventional RBF), but preparing a corporate body of God's people for translation at the coming of Christ. The great controversy between Christ and Satan cannot be concluded until such a demonstration develops. Thus it is evident that views of popular churches that do not follow Christ by faith into His Most Holy Apartment ministry cannot be ‘present truth' righteousness by faith. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has a special, unique message of the everlasting gospel entrusted to us (P. 18). The tying of the doctrine of RBF to Christ's work in the Most Holy Place is called "the genius" of the 1888-era message (P. 11).

Christ Took Our Fallen Nature

In order to be our High Priest, Jesus must take upon Himself our fallen nature. (However, they object to calling it "sinful" nature). This view of Christology is seen as essential for a people called upon to overcome as Jesus overcame and be translated (though by implication it might not be essential for Christians that expect to get to heaven via the grave).

Character Perfection Is Not Only Possible, but Certain

Character perfection is not only possible but certain for all who believe "the everlasting gospel of Revelation 14. It is the opposite of "perfectionism," he says, which is rooted in egocentrism. Wieland rejects even the phrase "final generation perfectionism" because he says it still implies an unhealthy egocentric preoccupation with self that is antithetical to "perfection of character," which is selfless and filled with agape.

All God's biddings are enablings, so it is easy to be saved and hard to be lost if one understands and believes the full truth of the gospel. This righteousness is obtained totally by faith, and not by works. Apparently it is transformation of character through the power of God rather than merely a legal declaration (or a legal fiction) that takes place upon true belief.  This understanding of RBF:

     a.  is the truth that completes the gospel commission
     b.  is the latter rain
     c.  was the beginning of the Loud Cry (which began in 1888)
     d.  prepares a people for translation

Believe and Live

The only difficult aspect of salvation is learning to believe how good the Good News is, because unbelief is ingrained in the human heart. But Jones and Waggoner also understood that "God has dealt to every person a measure of faith" which one can exercise by choice (p. 40).

God's One Covenant

The only kind of "covenant" God has ever initiated, or wanted to initiate, was the unilateral promise He made to Abraham. That required no reciprocal promises on Abraham's part. Abraham only accepted it in faith and believed. This is the "everlasting" or "new" covenant. All other "covenants" are merely detours caused by mans initiative to amend God's covenant with Abraham and his descendants. All amendments initiated by man become insurmountable obstacles because unlike God's bidding, mans bidding is not an enabling. The "old covenant" was therefore an alternate plan initiated by Israel's unbelief. Paul saw it correctly only as schoolmaster to teach us that God's initial plan as offered to Abraham was best after all. The "new covenant is actually the return to the Abrahamic covenant (pg. 31-33, 52-54).

Christ's Sacrifice Accomplished Objective as Well as Legal Salvation

The idea that the death of Christ on the cross saved the world legally and objectively by dying every man's second death is the evangelistic message of Revelation 14. "Thus there is no reason for any human to die the second death except for its own personal unbelief, his refusal to appreciate what Christ has actually (not provisionally) accomplished for him on the cross" (We Believe, p.4)

Wieland and Short in Perspective

The larger picture is that the Seventh-day Adventist church is increasingly in need of a satisfying explanation for the delayed Second Advent. The Wieland-Short rejection thesis strikes a resonant chord in Adventism by supplying one. Wieland and Short may or may not know anything about 1888, or about Righteousness by Faith. As they once confessed to Leroy Froom, "We profess to know nothing more on the matter than has been recorded in the writings of Ellen G. White". Their life time has been spent studying, not 1888 and righteousness by faith per se, but 1888 and righteousness by faith as refracted through the pens of Ellen White and the two messengers (A.T. Jones and E.J Waggoner) she endorsed. This they have honestly disclosed from the very beginning, and have not changed.

Whether or not this is a sound way to discover the truth about 1888 and the reason for the long delay of the Second Coming is not the subject of this piece. But history shows that once granted their premises, they have proved themselves formidable defenders of their thesis against all opposition for over half a century. Those who have taken issue with their conclusions over the last half century without first repudiating their logic, such as Froom and Knight, have repeatedly shattered their evidentiary lances against the granite of that logic. On the other hand, those scholars who openly repudiated their logic by challenging the historical integrity of Ellen G White, such as Desmond Ford, and eventually Robert Brinsmead, soon found themselves in even more theological hot water with the Brethren than Wieland and Short. Thus the stalemate is likely to continue.

The undeniable facts are that Ellen White wrote some extremely negative things about the Minneapolis General Conference session of 1888 and all those who opposed her and the Jones-Waggoner message there. Those who opposed her then, felt fully justified in doing so on the basis that she appeared to be contradicting her own earlier pronouncements. This charge Ellen White denied, and of course Wieland and Short support her denial.  But whether they are right about Ellen White, 1888, Righteousness by Faith, or the reason for the Great Delay, who can argue against the conclusion that in the process of fighting the good fight, Wieland and Short have discovered the fountain of youth?