Messenger of the Lord

Spurned in 1888

Earlier, we noted that Ellen White was spurned by many at the 1888 General Conference in Minneapolis. ³⁷ Her appeal to lift eyes higher than the legalism that so many had unconsciously slipped into fell on many deaf ears. A few days after the conference she wrote: “I have not had a very easy time since I left the Pacific Coast. Our first meeting was not like any other General Conference I ever attended.... My testimony was ignored, and never in my life experience was I treated as at the [1888] conference.” ³⁸ MOL 234.6

In 1890 she penned: “Brethren, you are urging me to come to your camp meetings. I must tell you plainly that the course pursued toward me and my work since the General Conference at Minneapolis—your resistance of the light and warnings that God has given through me—has made my labor fifty times harder than it would otherwise have.... It seems to me that you have cast aside the word of the Lord as unworthy of your notice.... My experience since the conference at Minneapolis has not been very assuring. I have asked the Lord for wisdom daily, and that I may not be utterly disheartened, and go down to the grave brokenhearted as did my husband.” ³⁹ MOL 234.7

Though unwelcome in Minneapolis, Ellen White remained undaunted. Her writings in the 1890s drilled into the church, to whoever would listen, the voice of God making clear the fullness of the everlasting gospel (Revelation 14:6, 7). ⁴⁰ MOL 235.1

We can now see what lay behind the leadership’s strong desire for Ellen White to leave America for Australia. The earthquake aftershocks into the 1890s prompted by her strong support of A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, her equally strong disapproval of attitudes among many church leaders, plus the deep insights and clear messages involving the policies of the financial men running the General Conference and the publishing house, had much to do with the “urging” that she be sent to Australia. MOL 235.2

In 1896 she wrote to the General Conference president: “The Lord was not in our leaving America. He did not reveal that it was His will that I should leave Battle Creek. The Lord did not plan this, but He let you all move after your own imaginings.... We were needed at the heart of the work, and had your spiritual perception discerned the true situation, you would never have consented to the movements made. But the Lord read the hearts of all. There was so great a willingness to have us leave, that the Lord permitted this thing to take place. Those who were weary of the testimonies borne were left without the persons who bore them. Our separation from Battle Creek was to let men have their own will and way, which they thought superior to the way of the Lord.... When the Lord presented this matter to me as it really was, I opened my lips to no one, because I knew that no one would discern the matter in all its bearings.” ⁴¹ MOL 235.3

Earlier she had written in her diary on August 5, 1891: “This morning my mind is anxious and troubled in regard to my duty. Can it be the will of God that I go to Australia? This involves a great deal with me. I have not special light to leave America for this far-off country. Nevertheless, if I knew it was the voice of God, I would go. But I cannot understand this matter. Some who are bearing responsibilities in America seem to be very persistent that my special work should be to go to Europe and to Australia.” ⁴² MOL 235.4

But go she did, setting a good example for all to follow in responding to the decisions of church leadership. As time went on, she discovered, as did Joseph, that “it was not you who sent me here, but God” (Genesis 45:8). In spite of not being welcomed by men at the heart of denominational leadership, once more Ellen White set her face like flint to duty. MOL 235.5

But with each crisis, it seems that some forget the way they had been led in the past. For example, during the critical year 1903, when all Battle Creek—Adventists and the general public—were in consternation regarding proposals and plans to move the General Conference and the publishing house, Ellen White’s counsel was unambiguous, as clear as the noon sun on a cloudless day: “Move!” But the chaplain of the Sanitarium, Lycurgus McCoy, led the multitude who resisted the moves. He did not think the denominational leadership had enough business acumen to make such heavy decisions. Further, though McCoy considered Ellen White sincere, he did not “believe that the Lord has spoken to her on this question, although she believes it.” ⁴³ MOL 235.6

McCoy’s faint praise has often been repeated through the years. Those who have faced challenges, thinking that each new occasion is “different” from past problems, may or may not have had time to see clearly the relevancy of Ellen White. MOL 235.7

It is apparent from Biblical history that prophets do not hold an elective position; they are not “called” to their office by the group they are to serve. In a special way the prophet stands outside the bureaucratic or institutional door. Hebrew prophets understood this unique role, much to their distress at times. When the institutionalized church is confronted by the prophet, certain human dynamics are in motion that often treat the prophet as “unwelcome.” MOL 235.8

The prophet perceives the possible inhumanities of bureaucracy and the inherent rigidities and possible irregularities in institutionalism. For those within the institutional structure, the prophet is often perceived as exasperating with his/her vigorous challenges, searching counsel, or frank reproof. For those within who are motivated by other than the purest principles, the prophet is always unwelcome. MOL 236.1

Throughout Ellen White’s seventy-year ministry, many listened to her voice gladly. Her counsel proved self-authenticating. When the prophet’s disturbing voice ruffled unconsecrated feelings, relatively few leaders and members found excuses to turn away. When church leaders listened to the voice, the Advent movement prospered. ⁴⁴ MOL 236.2