Sabbath School Today
With the 1888 Message Dynamic
Ezra and Nehemiah
Lesson 13: Leaders in Israel
The biblical narrative is faithfully realistic and reports successes and failures. It records disappointments and shortcomings, putting leaders on alert and cautioning them against making the same mistakes that God's people made in the past. The successes and defeats of reforms are part of the biblical story. In the end, Ezra and Nehemiah are not heroes and models for long-term successful leadership. Though Ezra and Nehemiah were great leaders, the people were not great followers and hesitated to let God change their hearts and be their strength. Hence the short-lived reforms. Permanent reforms are possible only when humans continue to collaborate with the grace and power of God. This raises the issue of the role leadership played in our 1888 history.
Official correspondence in the Battle Creek archival files corroborates Ellen White's and A. T. Jones' testimony regarding the negative attitude of the most responsible leaders in Battle Creek toward the 1888 message. A. T. Jones said that "there was a secret antagonism always carried on." [1]
The letters of the General Conference Secretary, Dan T. Jones, illustrate how this attitude functioned. Although he was deeply prejudiced against the 1888 message and the messengers, a few weeks after Minneapolis the Holy Spirit impressed him with clear evidence that A. T. Jones was a true messenger of God.
It is phenomenal how good leaders could harden their hearts against what they clearly saw to be "credentials" of the Holy Spirit. We need to understand how this happened, for we today are in grave danger of repeating their history.
Dan Jones let his heart become hardened against the 1888 messengers, while during this same period Ellen White's attitude toward them became increasingly supportive. Here we see a mysterious ferment of the human spirit. As a responsible administrative officer, Dan Jones wrote to the leadership of the Missouri Conference, his home area. He communicated his mistaken judgment. There was an under-the-table kind of influence operating, the "secret antagonism" A. T. Jones spoke of:
"I think an Institute in Missouri would be a splendid thing; but I believe an institute on a quiet plan will be just as valuable to you as to make a great parade of it and get in ... Elder A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner. To tell you the truth, I do not have very much confidence in some of their ways of presenting things." [2]
The 1888 messengers probably never knew why their ministry was not welcome in Missouri.
Dan Jones' informative letters to G. I. Butler regarding developments at Battle Creek revealed the "antagonism" operating. He encouraged Butler in his opposition to the message:
"I have often thought of what you said to me last winter that the California fellows [Jones and Waggoner] would be on the editorial staff of the Review in less than two years. I should not be at all surprised if an attempt in that direction was made inside of that many months. But I feel sure that it would meet with very strong opposition." [3]
The "strong opposition" he anticipated erupted like a volcano within his own soul during the following winter of 1890. Waggoner one day announced in his Bible class that on the next Monday morning he would discuss the two covenants. He had been officially invited, even urged, to leave his work in California and teach in Battle Creek.
But when Dan Jones heard the news about the two covenants, he could not contain himself. He immediately took steps to stop Waggoner, appealing to Uriah Smith and even to Ellen White for support.
Jones and Waggoner were not welcomeat the Battle Creek headquarters. The tension was so sharp that it is easy to understand how Waggoner found himself sent to Britain in early 1892.
Uriah Smith's opposition to the 1888 message was logical, scholarly, and apparently reasonable. He wrote Ellen White on February 17, 1890 explaining why he could not receive it.
"As it looks to me, next to the death of Brother White, the greatest calamity that ever befell our cause was when Dr. Waggoner put his articles on the book of Galatians through the Signs. ..." [4]
Could it be that there are many "Uriah Smiths" in the church today, just as sincere and reasonable in their heart opposition to the light that in God's providence must yet lighten the earth with glory?
A deep heart enmity against the humbling message of Christ's righteousness made it possible for good brethren long ago to credit ill-founded rumors and distorted reports. Ellen White often compared the situation with the Jews opposing Christ.
It's too late now for our brethren of a century ago to dig deep enough into their souls to repent of rejecting the most significant outpouring of the Holy Spirit since Pentecost.
Thank God, it's not yet too late for us to do so, for we can easily see ourselves in them. With that we say goodbye to Ezra and Nehemiah for this quarter and welcome in the New Year with a study of the Book of Daniel.
--Paul E. Penno
Endnotes:
[1] Letter to C. E. Holmes, May 12, 1921.
[2] Letter to N. W. Alee, January 23, 1890.
[3] Letter, August 28, 1889.
[4] Letter of Uriah Smith, February 17, 1890.
Notes:
Pastor Paul Penno's video of this lesson is on the Internet at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR-bU-meHxo
"Sabbath School Today" is on the Internet at: http://1888message.org/sst.htm
| RR |
