Points Worthy of Note

For Seventh-day Adventists generally, the 1888 General Conference session in Minneapolis, and the ministerial institute that preceded it, brings to mind a matter of great importance—the message of righteousness by faith and the considerable resistance that met its presentation. Before the history of Ellen White's work at that crucial meeting is reviewed, certain points of background and developments should be considered:3BIO 394.5

1. Although as we look back, the subject of righteousness by faith is seen as one of great importance, it was but one of many pressing matters that called for attention of the delegates who met in Minneapolis for the twenty-seventh annual session of the General Conference and the ministerial institute that preceded it. “There was much business to be done,” wrote Ellen White. “The work had enlarged. New missions had been opened and new churches organized.”—Manuscript 24, 1888 (see also Selected Messages 3:166). The routine business of the session, while vitally important, presented only a few features of unusual interest. Steps were taken to place in operation a missionary ship to serve the work of the church in the South Pacific; there was also consideration of measures to counter the Blair Sunday bill before the United States Congress.3BIO 395.1

2. The period of time the workers were together extended through four weeks, short two days. The eighteen-day-long session was preceded by a week-long ministerial institute called to give study to the responsibility of church officers, and certain theological and historical matters touching prophecy. The one session blended into the other.3BIO 395.2

3. The ministerial institute was well advanced before the subject of righteousness by faith was introduced, and the discussion of this important point continued at the Bible study hour during the early part of the session.3BIO 395.3

4. While the business of the conference, shown by the reports in the issues of the General Conference Bulletin, was broad and significant, the feelings and attitudes of those present were molded by the theological discussions.3BIO 395.4

5. Except for the references to situations found in the reports of nine of Ellen White's nearly twenty addresses, there is very little by way of a day-by-day record, for the practice had not yet been adopted of reporting all meetings. The editorial reports of the conference in the Review and Herald yield virtually nothing in the way of a record of the day-by-day activities.3BIO 395.5

6. Consequently, the information concerning just what took place at Minneapolis in the way of theological discussions has come largely from the E. G. White documents and the memory statements of a few who were present, as they looked back to the meeting.3BIO 395.6

7. As to establishing positions, no official action was taken in regard to the theological questions discussed. The uniform witness concerning the attitude toward the matter of righteousness by faith was that there were mixed reactions. These were described succinctly by Jones in 1893: “I know that some there accepted it; others rejected it entirely.... Others tried to stand halfway between, and get it that way.”—The General Conference Bulletin, 1893, 185. Ellen White and others corroborate this. It is not possible to establish, from the records available, the relative number in each of the three groups.3BIO 395.7

8. 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. The concept of such rejection has been put forward by individuals, none of whom were present at Minneapolis, and in the face of the witness of responsible men who were there. [These statements from A. T. Robinson, C. C. Mcreynolds, and W. C. White appear as appendix D of A. V. Olson's thirteen crisis years.]3BIO 396.1

9. The concept of denominational rejection, when projected, is set forth in the atmosphere of Ellen G. White statements made concerning the negative position of certain individuals—the “some” of Jones's report, above. The historical record of the reception in the field following the session supports the concept that favorable attitudes were quite general.3BIO 396.2

10. Without depreciating the importance of the vital truth of righteousness by faith, and it is a vital truth, it would seem that disproportionate emphasis has come to be given to the experience of the Minneapolis General Conference session. J. N. Loughborough, who authored the first two works on denominational history, Rise and Progress of the Seventh-day Adventists (1892), and a revision and enlargement in 1905, The Great Second Advent Movement, makes no mention of the session or the issues. True, he was not there, but if the matter was prominent at the time he wrote, he could not have overlooked it. Life Sketches of Ellen G. White, published in 1915, makes no reference whatsoever to the General Conference session of 1888. Dr. M. Ellsworth Olsen, in his comprehensive work Origin and Progress of Seventh-day Adventists, published in 1925, devotes eight lines to a mention of the Minneapolis session.3BIO 396.3

11. Later writers of standard historical works deal with the matter: (1) A. W. Spalding, in Origin and History of Seventh-day Adventists, (originally published as Captains of the Host by the Review and Herald in 1949), devoted a chapter to “The Issues of 1888”; (2) L. E. Froom, in Movement of Destiny (1971), goes quite into detail, devoting several chapters to the subject.3BIO 397.1

12. A careful review of contemporary documents reveals that while the issue of the doctrinal point of righteousness by faith was a prominent one in 1888, contention among leading ministers and negative attitudes toward Ellen White and the messages of the Spirit of Prophecy were vital points, as the great adversary attempted to steal a march on the church.3BIO 397.2

13. It has been suggested that the Minneapolis session marked a noticeable change in Ellen White's teaching on the law and the gospel. While Minneapolis brought a new emphasis in bringing to the front “neglected truth,” the fact that there was no change in teaching is evidenced in the nineteen articles from her pen comprising the 122-page book Faith and Works, with six written before 1888 and thirteen written subsequent to the Minneapolis session.3BIO 397.3

14. The Minneapolis session and its problems did not become a topic to which Ellen White would often refer. It was one event among others in her life experience. She was not obsessed with the matter. She did occasionally refer to the loss to individuals and the church because of the attitudes of certain ones there. To Ellen White it was a matter of picking up and pressing on, not losing sight of the vital truths reemphasized at the session.3BIO 397.4