page 381

"THIRD GENERAL CONFERENCE REPORT."

WIELAND-SHORT MANUSCRIPT COMMITTEE REPORT. As Received By the Officers.

PRINCIPAL CONTENTIONS of Brethren R. J. Wieland and D. K. Short.

1. Brethren Wieland and Short maintain that "we" -- our church or denomination -- rejected the light on righteousness by faith at the 1888 General Conference session, held in Minneapolis, Minnesota. This thought is emphasized again and again throughout the document.

This charge in unfounded. We cannot find a single statement in the writings of Sister White which supports it. She says, "despised by some" (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 89), "those who despised" (Ibid. p. 97). similar expressions are frequent in her writings relative to this matter.

Brother A. T. Jones, who was one of the two who gave the studies in Minneapolis, stated, in his talk before the General Conference session in 1893, in referring to the Minneapolis session, "I know that some there accepted it; others rejected it entirely.... Others tried to stand half way between, and get it that way." -- General Conference Bulletin, 1893, p. 185.

Elder A. G. Daniells, who became president of the General Conference a few years later, writes, in his book "Christ Our Righteousness":

"The message was not received alike by all who attended the Conference; in fact, there was serious difference of opinion concerning it among the leaders. This division of opinion concerning it among the leaders. This division of opinion may be classified as follows:

"Class 1.--Those who saw great light in it and gladly accepted it....

"Class 2.--There were some, however, who felt uncertain about the 'new teaching,' as they termed it. They seemed unable to grasp it....

"Class 3.--But there were others who were decidedly opposed to the presentation of the message." -- "Christ Our Righteousness", pp. 41, 42. [1]

page 382

No action was taken, by the delegates in session, to reject the message. How many were involved in the opposition group, we have no way of knowing. From various sources, we have discovered that the following men had joined on the wrong side in the struggle: G. I. Butler, Uriah Smith, J. H. Morrison, R. A. Underwood, W. W. Prescott, G. G. Rupert, I. D. Van Horn, W. H. Littlejohn, Le Roy Nicola, and Madison Miller.

From Sister White's pen we learn that Brethren Smith, Prescott, Rupert, Van Horn, and Nicola confessed their wrongs. Of others in the group she wrote: "I understand that Bro. Morrison and Madison Miller and others are coming into the light, where they may be a blessing to others." -- E. G. White letter, April, 24, 1893.

We have no mention of a confession by Elder Butler, but when he came back into the work, after an absence of a number of years due to the prolonged illness of his wife, Sister White expressed her joy, both by pen and orally. (See Ms. 124, 1902; letter 121, 1904; General Conference Bulletin, April 14, 1903; letter Nov. 30, 1910.) There can be no question, therefore, about Brother Butler's attitude at that time.

In the case of Brother Underwood, we have no record of a confession, but the chairman of this committee [on the Wieland-Short manuscript] declares:

"Brother Underwood became president of the Northern Union Conference when I was a young worker in Minnesota. At one of our camp meetings I heard him preach one of the clearest and most stirring sermons that I ever heard on the subject of righteousness by faith. I can still remember the illustration he used to show what it means for a man to be covered with the robe of Christ's righteousness."

Two other men who were involved in the opposition were Brethren A. R. Henry and C. Eldridge, both of them prominent leaders in the Review and Herald publishing house. Sister White reproved O. A. Olsen, the General Conference president, for taking Brother Henry, the manager of the Review and Herald, into his counsels and on long trips with him. In time, these men, A. R. Henry and C. Eldridge, left both the work and the church. [2]

page 383

2. They maintain that the confessions made by Uriah Smith and others who had been in opposition at the Minneapolis meeting were not sincere. As proof they quote a warning sent by Sister White to Brother Smith some time afterward counseling him to be careful.

This is no proof that Brother Smith was not sincere. The Bible contains many a warning for the saints to take heed lest they fall.

We ask, What right do Brethren Wieland and Short have to judge the motives of men who with tears confessed their wrongs?

3. They maintain that "every failure of God's people to follow the light shining upon their pathway for the past century must be completely rectified by the present generation before the remnant church can be granted any divine vindication before the world." Ms. p. 2. This thought is carried throughout the manuscript, and on page 199 they add: "The recognition of the truth of our history will require, of course, a confession of the iniquity of our fathers, that we are their true spiritual descendants, and have done no better. It will be a recognition of the truth of the Minneapolis refusal to accept the very gift we are now 'demanding' with 'determination' to receive."

This is certainly contrary to the teachings of the Bible, which declares "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Eze. 18:20). The same principle has been stated by Sr. White: "Those who live in this day are not accountable for the deeds of those who crucified the Son of God." -- Review and Herald, April 11, 1893, p. 226, col. 1. [3]

page 384

We have not found one single statement in the writings of Sister White calling upon the General Conference to confess the sins of the brethren who sinned in Minneapolis. The following quotation is a sample of what she did say at different times:

"The sin committed in what took place in Minneapolis remains on the record books of heaven, registered against the names of those who resisted light, and it will remain upon the record until full confession is made, and the transgressors stand in full humility before God." -- Letter to O. A. Olsen, Sept. 1, 1893.

What was done in Minneapolis is past history. We cannot change it one iota. The only thing we can do now is to avoid, by the grace of God, a repetition of the mistake of those who opposed the message of God.

4. They maintain that Brethren A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner were hated and despised by the General Conference leaders after 1888.

There is no evidence to prove that this was so, but there is evidence to the contrary. Brethren Jones and Waggoner were the principal speakers or Bible teachers at all the General Conference sessions for a number of years after 1888. At the morning meetings at the 1889 session, Brother Jones had the studies and spoke on righteousness by faith; in 1891, Brother Waggoner had sixteen; in 1893, Brother Jones had twenty-four; in 1895, Brother Jones had twenty-six; in 1897, Brother Jones had eleven, and Brother Waggoner had nineteen; and in 1899 Brother Waggoner had three, and Brother Jones had seven. These facts would indicate that these men were held in high esteem by the responsible General Conference leaders.

5. They maintain that the light which came to the denomination in Minneapolis through Brethren A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, on the subject of righteousness by faith, lies buried in the archives and they demand that the studies given by these men at the 1888-1893 sessions be printed now. (See Ms., page 203, paragraph 7,) [4]

page 385

The studies given by these brethren in Minneapolis were not published in the "General Conference Bulletin". Brother Daniells, on page 43 of his book "Christ Our Righteousness", states that they were not published. Consequently, they are not to be found in our archives. Likewise, the studies given by Brother Jones at the 1889 session were not recorded in the bulletin and therefore are not in our archives.

"The studies by Brother Waggoner at the 1891 Session were on the Book of Romans. At that Session the General Conference started the practice of publishing in the bulletin the Bible studies given by session speakers. These studies by Brother Waggoner thus were recorded in the 1891 Session Bulletins."

6. They maintain that the studies by Brethren A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner were more mature than anything that had ever been presented on the subject before. Here are their words:

"This chapter will present evidence to show that the message of 1888 was neither a restatement of the doctrine of Luther and Wesley, nor a mere reemphasis of the teachings of the Adventist pioneers; but that it was a more mature conception of the 'everlasting gospel' than had ever been perceived by any previous generation of human beings, a preaching of 'righteousness by faith' more mature and developed, and more practical than had been preached even by the Apostle Paul." -- Ms. pp. 41, 42.

This could hardly be true. They were not divinely inspired prophets of the Lord. They had received no prophetic vision. Their knowledge of the subject came from the writings of Paul and other Bible writers -- mostly from Paul.

The studies covering the question of righteousness by faith given by Brethren E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones at the 1891 and 1893 General Conference sessions, we do not find to be more mature or essentially different from what we find in the writings of Sister White and some of our other authors. [5]

page 386

Beginning on page 105 of their manuscript, Brethren Wieland and Short admit that Brother A. T. Jones became confused in his studies on righteousness by faith at the 1893 sessions. Would it be wise, then, to publish these studies?

7. At this point, let us mention that in order to prove their contention that after 1888 the General Conference leaders opposed the light on righteousness by faith, Brethren Wieland and Short make use of messages from Sister White to the leaders reproving them for situations existing in Battle Creek.

Most of these messages related to the situation existing in our publishing house and sanitarium in Battle Creek. the issue was not over righteousness by faith, but over the concentration of power in Battle Creek, and over the wrong principles and evil practices in the institutions there.

8. They maintain that we are infatuated with a false Christ and are guilty of Baal worship. By way of explanation and in an effort to substantiate this, they make numerous statements, among which the following:

(a) "The reader is reminded that Baal worship is something definitely not original with Israel, but is always imported from our neighbors. The very term 'Babylon' signifying confusion, the reader will recognize that if present-day confusion is evident in our contemporary presentations of 'righteousness by faith,' it must necessarily, indicate a Babylonian influence infiltrating our thinking and experience. Such confusion is the haze and mysticism which permits the entrance of a false Christ into the picture." -- Ms., p. 172.

"This investigation into contemporary Baal worship within Israel will be confined largely to the heart of the matter -- our teaching regarding 'righteousness by faith,' the third angel's message in verity. There will be no attempt to define Baal worship by any vague term that would have little practical significance. Baal worship is a mistaking of the false Christ for the true Christ, and the confusion centers in the 'Christian' experience of the 'believer.' If our understanding of 'righteousness by faith' is identical, or nearly identical, to that of Babylon, we have confused 'the great leader of apostasy' with 'Christ our righteousness.' -- Ibid., p. 173. [6]

page 387

If we understand rightly the above, the contention is that Babylonian infiltrations have been substituted within the church for divine truth. That at least is the implication, though in their efforts to present what they consider to be the true Christ, Brethren Wieland and Short quote extensively from a book by Garnier, a non-Adventist writer. Some of Garnier's views are correct; others definitely are not. It is evident that the authors' views have been Garnier's writings, and as we shall point out shortly, some of these views are contrary to the teachings of the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy. However, should we for this accuse Brethren Wieland and Short of Baal worship or of following a false Christ? Certainly we must recognize truth as truth and error and error whether Garnier or anyone else presents it. We judge not truth or error by where it comes from but by the teachings of God's Word. Yet, we must be most careful not to misjudge motives and intent, or to exaggerate the scope of a point on which there may be incomplete knowledge or understanding.

In this connection the authors object to certain expressions used by some of our writers regarding atonement, expiation, the forgiveness of sin, the death of Christ, etc. Though some may have erred on one or other point when dealing with the theme of righteousness by faith, or the person of Christ, or any other doctrine, this certainly cannot be taken justly as an indication that the denomination has strayed from truth and is worshiping Baal or following a false Christ. Must not it be that a presentation that leads, even unwittingly, to such sweeping conclusions is wrong in fact and in spirit, and suggests the need of greater discernment and restraint? [7]

page 388

More directly to the point, we believe that those who read the many books from the pen of Sister White and our Seventh-day Adventist writers, will agree that in verity we have been presenting the Christ of the Bible. Our teaching regarding this Christ and righteousness by faith is summed up in our "Church Manual". Here the church speaks officially and defines fundamental beliefs and doctrine. We quote:

"That Jesus Christ is very God, being of the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father. While retaining His divine nature, He took upon Himself the nature of the human family, lived on the earth as a man, exemplified in His life as our example the principles of righteousness, attested His relationship to God by many might miracles, died for our sins on the cross, was raised from the dead, and ascended to the Father, where He ever lives to make intercession for us.

"That the law of ten commandments points out sin, the penalty of which is death. The law cannot save the transgressor from his sin, nor impart power to keep him from sinning. In infinite love and mercy God provides a way whereby this may be done. He furnishes a substitute, even Christ the righteous one, to die in man's stead, making 'him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.' 2 Cor. 5:21. We are justified, not by obedience to the law, but by the grace that is in Christ Jesus. By accepting Christ, man is reconciled to God, justified by the blood of Christ for the sins of the past, and saved from the power of sin by His indwelling life. Thus the gospel becomes 'the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.' This experience is wrought by the divine agency of the Holy Spirit, who convinces of sin and leads to the Sin Bearer, inducting believers into the new-covenant relationship, where the law of God is written on their hearts; and through the enabling power of the indwelling Christ, their lives are brought into conformity to the divine precepts. The honor and merit of this wonderful transformation belong wholly to Christ." -- Church Manual, pp. 29-31.

The book "Steps to Christ" has been published in 83 languages of the church and approximately 9 million copies have been placed in circulation. In this book, on the glorious theme of righteousness by faith, the messenger of the Lord has written:

"We have no righteousness of our own, with which to meet the claims of the law of God. But Christ has made a way of escape for us. He lived on earth amid trials and temptations, such as we have to meet. He lived a sinless life. He died for us, and now He offers to take our sins and give us His righteousness. If you give yourself to Him, and accept Him as your Saviour, then, sinful as your life may have been, for His sake you are accounted righteous, Christ's character stands in place of your character, and you are accepted before God just as if you had not sinned." -- "Steps to Christ", page 67. [8]

page 389

(b) About the death of Christ, they write:

"The confusion is pointed by the fact that the false view requires the belief that the Son of God did not die, but only the Son of man, i.e., His body." -- Ms., p. 158.

If this is the "false view," then Sister White advocates the false view, for in one of her letters she writes:

"When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible." -- Letter 280, 1904, quoted in "The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary", vol. 5, p. 1113.

(c) About expiation and atonement, they say:

"To speak of the expiatory sufferings of Christ conveys the idea that in some mysterious way sin was atoned for, and can therefore be condoned or overlooked by God. Such an idea is the very root and the strength of antinomianism. Human minds struggle in vain to grasp the meaning of the Cross, and are confused when sin is represented as atoned for at the Cross. The truth is that sin can not be atoned for by the true Christ (though the false Christ would like to find an atonement for it, and represents that there is such); but that the sinner can be reconciled to God's righteousness and delivered from the power of sin, which God still hates, and is therefore not reconciled to." -- Ms. p. 175.

In the above paragraph, Brethren Wieland and Short contradict statements made by Sister White with reference to expiation and atonement. Note the following quotations:

"The plan was entered into by the Son of God, knowing all the steps in his humiliation, that he must descend to make an expiation for the sins of a condemned, groaning world." -- Review and Herald, July 5, 1887, p. 417. (Quoted by A. T. Jones in "General Conference Bulletin", 1895, p. 332.)

"When He offered Himself on the cross, a perfect atonement was made for the sins of the people." -- Signs of the Times, June 28, 1899, p. 1, col. 1, quoted in Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, p. 663. [9]

page 390

"Our great High Priest completed the sacrificial offering of Himself when He suffered without the gate. Then a perfect atonement was made for the sins of the people." -- Ms. 128, 1897, quoted in Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, p. 663.

(d) About forgiveness of sin, they say:

"Invariably the deeper calls to progressive sanctification concern sins which were all the time present in the heart when the 'believer' was 'saved'. He was cleansed from all known sin, but not from all subconscious sin." -- Ms., pp. 188, 189.

Our Bible says:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1John 1:9).

Here there is no reservation made for subconscious sins.

9. Brethren Wieland and Short devote pages to fine distinctions and hair-splitting arguments on justification and sanctification. Of such efforts Sister White wrote, many years ago:

"Many commit the error of trying to define minutely the fine points of distinction between justification and sanctification. Into the definitions of these two terms they often bring their own ideas and speculations. Why try to be more minute than is Inspiration on the vital question of righteousness by faith? -- "The Faith I Live By", p. 116.

10. At this point, let us say that we deeply regret some of the brethren at the Minneapolis session opposed the message of righteousness by faith. They committed a grievous mistake by so doing. There is no question but that their opposition at the session and out in the field brought sorrow and disappointment to God and to many of His faithful children, and that it deprived the cause of God of blessings that the Lord desired to bestow upon it without delay.

We rejoice, however, that through the efforts of Sister White and some of the brethren the opposition gradually ceased. Confessions were made, and hearts were united. In 1907 Ellen G. White could say: "As Bible Christians we ever have been on gaining ground." [10]

page 391

Some of us have been a long time in this work, and have visited our people all around the world, yet we cannot recall having found opposition to the doctrine of righteousness by faith anywhere.

That there is need of a revival in our midst, we freely admit. If the church had been in the right spiritual condition and had done its duty we could have been in the kingdom before this.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF OUR EXPERIENCE WITH BRETHREN WIELAND AND SHORT.

1. Back in 1950, Brethren R. J. Wieland and D. K. Short unburdened their hearts to a small committee that had been appointed to hear them.

2. After hearing Brethren Wieland and Short, the committee advised them to put their views in writing. This they did.

3. After reading the manuscript prepared by Brethren Wieland and Short, the committee reported to the General Conference Officers and suggested that a larger committee give careful study to the entire manuscript.

As a result, the Officers assigned the manuscript to the Defense Literature Committee for their study.

4. In due time, the Defense Literature Committee informed Brethren Wieland and Short that they could not approve the document, and gave them the reasons why they could not approve it. [11]

page 392

5. Brethren Wieland and Short agreed not to circulate their manuscript. But some friend, or friends, who had obtained a copy, let it get into the hands of others, who have duplicated and circulated it. Some who have read it are becoming confused and perplexed.

6. Brethren and Short let it be known that they had not changed their views, and that they wanted their manuscript re-examined and re-appraised. Consequently, the Officers appointed a committee to re-examine and re-appraise the Wieland-Short manuscript, and expressed the hope that the committee would be ready to report before the General Conference session. However, owing to the fact that the members of this committee had to be away from the office much of the time until the General Conference session, the committee did not have at their disposal the necessary time required to deal with all features of the manuscript. In view of this situation, the committee hoped that a report on certain areas that they were able to deal with would suffice to make clear the weakness in the Wieland-Short manuscript. When our committee were ready to report, copies of our answer were placed in the hands of all the General Conference Officers -- including all the division presidents and the North American union presidents. In a meeting of this group, our document was received.

7. Instead of accepting the findings of the committee, Brethren Wieland and Short wrote a new voluminous document in defense of their original views.

8. Brethren and Short also wrote a letter to Brother A. L. Hudson. From this letter (Dated October 24, 1958) I quote the last paragraph:

"We are therefore faced today with making our position clear. It is this. For eight years we have made every endeavor to respect the positions of our brethren in the General Conference. When we requested individuals not to reproduce the manuscript, it was because of this respect and deference. We have never desired to enter into controversy with the General Conference or to appeal the discussion to the church at large. We do not relish even the thought of controversy. But God forbid, that out of respect or deference to certain leaders or their leadership, we should deny truth! Actually we do not believe a very large segment of the General Conference is even acquainted with the manuscript "1888 Re-examined," hence "Appraisal" represents the reply of a very small group of men. Nonetheless it is issued under the name of the General Conference and must be accepted as such. For this we are very sorry, but thus history is being made. As the record will show, our brethren have had repeated requests over the past eight years to face up to the issue, all of which has been to no avail. We can therefore no longer endeavor to shield our brethren in this matter, come what may." [12]

page 393

10. Recently your committee spent seven hours with Brethren Wieland and Short in an effort to understand more fully their work and to help them. The results of this interview have remained to date inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS.

It may be asked: What is the objective or the real purpose of this 204-page document by Brethren R. J. Wieland and D. K. Short?

After reading and rereading the Wieland-Short manuscript, we believe that it has a twofold purpose:

"First": To prove that at the General Conference session held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the year 1888, "we" -- our church or denomination -- rejected the light sent to us by the Lord through Brethren A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner on the subject of righteousness by faith; that since then we have been on a detour, presenting hazy ideas regarding righteousness by faith; and that we have been infatuated with a false Christ.

"Second": That we can never get back on the track, and experience the full blessing of God in the outpouring of the latter rain, until the General Conference confesses that we rejected the light in Minneapolis. [13]

page 394

OUR ANSWER.

Certainly Brethren Wieland and Short have failed to prove that our church rejected the light in Minneapolis. Neither Brethren Wieland and Short nor anyone else can prove that this light was rejected, for the simple reason that it was not rejected. The facts are that there was no action taken to reject it. Some of those present opposed it, yes, but others accepted it with joy.

It is our conviction that the charge that our presentation of righteousness by faith has been hazy is unfounded. That some writers may have used unfortunate expressions may be true, but where can we find clearer, more beautiful, and more heart-warming presentations of the Bible subject of righteousness by faith than are found in the writings of Sister White? Many of our other writers also have set forth acceptably the same glorious truth. Then, as recorded above, the church's statements in the "Church Manual" are clear and correct.

The charge that we are infatuated with a false Christ and are presenting a false Christ is, we believe, unfounded. We must record our inability to accept some of the things Brethren Wieland and Short say about the nature and work of Christ. The reason is that these statements are out of harmony with the writings of the Spirit of prophecy. When dealing with the "mystery of godliness," it behooves us all to be very careful lest we express our own ideas instead of the truth of God.

It is our conviction that Brethren Wieland and Short have not produced a single statement from the Spirit of prophecy writings to support their contention that God expects the General Conference to confess that "we" (our church) rejected the light in Minneapolis. All that can be produced are statements to the effect that those who rejected the light would have to confess this rejection if they wanted their sins removed from the record above. [15]

page 395

Some of them, Sister White tells us, did confess. How many may have failed to do so before they died, we do not know. Even though a considerable number may have failed to clear their record, the General Conference cannot change their destiny by now confessing for them. It is our conviction that it is not a confession of the sins of our forefathers that will bring the outpouring of the latter rain upon us in its fullness, but rather the confession of our own sins in failing to walk in the light which God has given us in His Word and in the writings of the Spirit of prophecy, not only on the doctrine of righteousness by faith, but on the entire gospel message. "THE END." [15]