Wieland, Robert Julius (1916–2011)

By Matthew J. Lucio


Matthew J. Lucio, MDiv. (Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan). Lucio currently pastors in Peoria, Illinois, and has previously pastored districts in Tennessee and Iowa. He has presented several academic papers on church history for the Adventist Society for Religious Studies (ASRS), and also hosts the Adventist History Podcast. 

First Published: March 19, 2024

Robert J. Wieland was a pastor, author, musician, and missionary. He is best known for his controversial interpretation of the 1888 General Conference session in a manuscript co-authored with Donald K. Short, 1888 Re-Examined. This work in time led to the creation of the independent ministry, the 1888 Message Study Committee.

Early Life

Robert Julius Wieland was born on May 1, 1916, in Audubon, Iowa, to Rudolph (1869-1962) and Mae Nina (née Crowther) Wieland (ca. 1876-1918). Robert had an older brother, Howard Crowther (b. 1910). The family moved to Spencer, West Virginia, where Rudolph worked as an electrician. The outbreak of Spanish influenza claimed Mae’s life in September 1918 and nearly took the infant Wieland’s own life as well. After her death, Rudolph, then 53 years old, remarried Sarah Christine Fry on March 15, 1922, and the family moved to St. Cloud, Florida.1

Although the family had been part of a Lutheran congregation, Wieland attended a public high school in St. Cloud and a Presbyterian church on Sundays. According to Wieland’s later recollection, the Sunday School class memorized the Ten Commandments, including the fourth commandment, leading Wieland to wonder for the first time why his church met on Sunday. His teacher told him that it must be all right because everybody did it.2 Subsequent personal study led Robert to begin observing the seventh-day Sabbath on his own. Rudolph found a local Seventh-day Adventist congregation and told his son about them. Wieland was baptized in February 1929, by H. M. Kelley (1886-1944),3 and became the only Adventist in his family which brought opposition from school and especially from his stepmother, who “opposed the message vigorously.”4 After some difficulty, he was able to receive accommodations for examinations.

Wieland attended Southern Junior College (now Southern Adventist University) from 1933 to 1935. He next attended Washington Missionary College (now Washington Adventist University) from 1936-1939, where he developed an acquaintance with Donald K. Short (1915-2004) and graduated with a bachelor’s degree in theology. During summers, Wieland worked as a colporteur, selling copies of The Great Controversy in Florida.5

Wieland was “deeply embarrassed” in high school when his friends quoted from Galatians to show that Christians were no longer under the law. He believed “that the prophet Paul rather let us down.”6 Wieland’s discovery of two Adventist preachers, A. T. Jones (1850-1923) and E. J. Waggoner (1855-1916), helped him resolve the problem of the law. He recounted how, during his junior year,7 his professor at Washington Missionary College, Lindsay A. Semmens, observed that a colleague in Australia “did not understand the two covenants,” leading Wieland to question who understood the law. According to Wieland, Semmens recommended E. J. Waggoner’s The Glad Tidings (first published in 1900). A subsequent visit with Judson S. Washburn (1863-1955), at Semmens’s behest, cemented in Wieland a deep respect for Jones and Waggoner.8 “For the first time,” Wieland later wrote, “I saw the Gospel as really good news.”9 Though a teacher warned him of Waggoner’s pantheism, Wieland eagerly copied large passages on his typewriter.10

After graduation, Wieland returned to Florida to work as a literature evangelist and then as part of a team of evangelists who worked across the conference. In 1940, the pastor of the Miami Temple congregation, C. R. Gibbs, asked Wieland to look after his congregation in Hialeah. Wieland assisted until December 1941, at which time he was called to the St. Augustine-Palatka-Bunnel district.11

Wieland met a nursing student named Grace Thomson (1917-2008) who worked as a bellhop at the Florida Sanitarium. Grace, a Canadian citizen, was also baptized by H. M. Kelley while attending Forest Lake Academy in 1931. She graduated from the Florida Sanitarium School of Nursing in 1939.12 Upon graduation, she moved to California for post-graduate work at the Loma Linda Sanitarium. Wieland proposed to her in December 1941, and the couple wed on January 11, 1942, in Glendale, California. Robert and Grace had three children: Robert E. (Florida, 1944), John (Uganda, 1946), and Margaret (Uganda, 1951).13

Missionaries to Africa

In 1944, the General Conference called the Wielands to serve as missionaries in Uganda. Wieland later remarked that it was “the last place in the world we wanted to go.”14 In 1947, after a year-and-a-half in the field as a mission director in Mbale, the Southern Africa Division appointed Wieland as president of the Uganda Mission. Wieland used his position to encourage the translation and dissemination of Ellen White’s books into Luganda, the most widely used language in Uganda.15 Wieland was instrumental in starting the Ankole Mission Hospital, now the Ishaka Adventist Hospital in Ishaka, Bushenyi District, Western Uganda.16

While there, Wieland encountered the Balokole (or Abalokole) Movement, part of the East African Revival Movement. It was centered in Anglican parts of Africa, especially Uganda and was influenced by the nineteenth-century Keswick Movement. The Balokole movement focused on personal repentance, public confession of sin, an outward expression of inward holiness through actions and testimony, and a conviction of personal salvation. The movement sought to correct what they perceived as low morality and a lack of genuine conversion among Christians in Africa, a Laodicean attitude in Christianity in general, and corruption in the church organization.17 Balokole leaders sometimes openly conflicted with organized churches and church leaders, particularly Anglicans, as they sought to convert them.18 After urging someone to confess their sins, Balokole preachers danced and sang that another soul was won for the kingdom. Wieland was concerned that the Balokole Movement would split the church in Uganda, so he preached “on the sanctuary and the concept of agape [love] and the cross of Christ.”19 The Adventist churches remained together, and Wieland celebrated the milestone of 1,000 baptized church members in Uganda.20


In 1949, the Wielands went on educational furlough to the United States. They boarded the S.S. Llandovery Castle in Mombosa, Kenya, where Donald K. Short and his wife, Garnette (1913-2005), who were also serving as missionaries in the region, joined them. While ashore in England, Wieland met Rosa Spicer, then in her 90s who shared memories about E. J. Waggoner. Spicer gave Wieland her personal copy of Waggoner’s Glad Tidings which he gratefully received as “my treasured possession.”21

Once the Wielands arrived in the United States, the men attended the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in Takoma Park, Maryland. Wieland looked forward to an environment where “the Adventist concept of righteousness by faith” was “understood and discussed.”22 Professor Charles Weniger (1896-1964), urged Wieland to delay his studies. Wieland was troubled by a class on righteousness by faith taught by evangelist George Vandeman (1916-2000). As he went through the course material, he realized what bothered him: “This was the same thing I had to meet in Uganda.”23

In December, Wieland received a note to see the seminary president, Denton E. Rebok (1897-1983), about his failure to properly register for classes. Wieland expressed his disappointment to Rebok that “the so-called righteousness by faith that was being taught there in the seminary was not what the Lord had sent to Seventh-day Adventists in the 1888 message.”24 Wieland later admitted that he was “full of enthusiasm” and “caught up in the thrill of 1888” in expressing himself to Rebok.25 In his uncorroborated account, Wieland claims that Rebok was furious and personally walked him back to his apartment to count his dishes (to make sure none were broken) and signed him out of student housing—effectively kicking Wieland out of seminary.26 Wieland said he stayed at a motel and began copying class material with his typewriter, especially material he found by Jones and Waggoner from the 1893 General Conference Bulletin: “The more I read, the more I copied, the more thrilled I was with the truth of this history that really the 1888 message was not accepted. If it had been, we’d be in the kingdom by now!”27

Wieland contrasted his understanding with established Adventist historians—A. W. Spalding (1877-1953) and L. H. Christian (1871-1949)—who portrayed 1888 as a triumph. Wieland visited the White Estate office to request copies of Ellen White’s unpublished writings on the subject. Dores Eugene Robinson (1879-1957), briefly one of Ellen White’s literary assistants, informed Wieland that the materials were not normally accessible to the public.28 Wieland introduced himself as the President of the Uganda Mission on furlough and wanted access to clear up some points of confusion from Adventist history. Wieland received access with the agreement that he would not publish anything from the collection. Wieland retrieved his typewriter and copied material until the office closed. The next day, in his quest to copy more material, Robinson told Wieland that he had made a mistake and could not see the file again. Confused and frustrated at what he perceived as a cover-up, Wieland returned to Tennessee to see his wife. He later wrote: “This was the Adventist’s Watergate.”29

Wieland spent the winter of 1949-1950 in Florida. While there, he grew increasingly concerned about other trends in the church, most notably George E. Vandeman’s qualified endorsement of a Methodist devotional book, The Way to Power and Poise (1949), as promoted in The Ministry. Vandeman acknowledged that “there may be some question regarding theology” with this book, but he reassured readers that “there is little emphasis upon these items.”30 Wieland protested to Vandeman and even sent a letter to the General Conference president. Wieland was heartened when W. A. Spicer, former church president, directed a veiled rebuke to Vandeman, warning that “poise has been a slogan in Eastern philosophy.”31 In his reply to Wieland, Spicer confirmed that he did have Vandeman’s review in mind. Wieland wrote:

Here I was, all alone, standing for what I believed was right against the Seminary and the Ministry magazine [sic] and General Conference personnel in the positions that they took. And suddenly an ex-General Conference president takes his stand by my side, emphatically and unequivocally. This, of course, encouraged me. Maybe after all I wasn’t completely crazy.32

Wieland found further justification for his critique of the denomination while in Washington, D.C., when he met Judson S. Washburn and Claude E. Holmes, both veteran agitators with a record of attacking church administrators. Holmes, who was known for his extensive collection of published and unpublished Ellen White materials, provided Wieland with access to many unpublished letters, including copies of some of the letters he had not been able to finish copying at the White Estate. Washburn also had copies of additional materials from Jones and Waggoner, along with more unpublished Ellen White material. In a memorable walk with Wieland, Washburn stopped to look at a muddy puddle. He expressed how some of this “new theology” had crept into the church was really nothing more than a shallow muddy puddle.33 Washburn and Holmes deepened Wieland’s admiration for Jones and Waggoner and provided him with key ideas about the failure of church leaders to change the course of the denomination after 1888, attributing these failures to liberal leaning theologians and administrators within the denomination stemming back to the “Daily” controversy of the early twentieth century.

The 1950 General Conference Session

Wieland and Short met again as delegates to the 1950 General Conference session. He attended the ministerial meetings before the session oriented upon the theme of Christ-centered preaching. Wieland summarized the meetings by saying that “the general idea was that Seventh-day Adventists were merely a ‘me-too’ people” who preached the same message as other Protestants “with a few doctrinal distinctives thrown in.”34

Increasingly concerned about the direction of the church, Wieland wrote a letter to General Conference leaders, dated July 11, in which he laid out his concerns about the future of the denomination. Reflecting on the recent emphasis during the ministerial meetings about Christ-centered preaching, he opined: “Much of this so-called ‘Christ-centered preaching’ is in reality merely anti-Christ centered preaching.’”35 Wieland knew that his letter was “strongly worded” and asked Donald Short to read it to make sure he was not a “crazy fool.”36 Short cosigned the letter, and both men were subsequently called in to meet with an associate secretary of the General Conference (presumably James I. Robison), who admonished the missionaries and said there would be a meeting that September to discuss their future.37


Next Wieland and Short decided “to write out our convictions in a manuscript so clearly, so plainly, so well-documented that no honest person could possibly misunderstand what we were saying.”38 The result was fifty mimeographed copies of a 204-page document titled “1888 Re-Examined.”

The 1888 Re-Examined manuscript provocatively claimed that the denomination failed to truly understand the message of Jones and Waggoner. They argued that “the Advent movement has so far fallen far short of the divine ideal for it” that “the conviction is deepening within the movement that its failure is assuming truly vexing proportions.”39 Instead, church leaders rejected the 1888 message in the years following the pivotal 1888 General Conference session. Wieland called Jones and Waggoner’s teaching about righteousness by faith the clearest “conception of the everlasting gospel than had ever been perceived by any previous generation of human beings” and “more practical than had been preached even by the Apostle Paul.”40 Wieland and Short clung to the words of Ellen White: “the sin committed in what took place at 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.”41 Wieland interpreted such statements as a call for the church to corporately repent for failing to embrace Jones and Waggoner’s message of righteousness by faith. According to Wieland and Short, until this repentance occurred, the Seventh-day Adventist Church would remain in a state of failure. This rejection proved “a stupid and inexcusable, verily foolish, arresting of her [the church’s] spiritual development.” In effect, “no significant advance whatever. . . . has been made since 1888.”42 The denomination was effectively stuck in a holding pattern. More seriously, they argued, the failure of the church after 1888 meant that “those gracious, long-awaited showers of heavenly blessing known as the latter rain ceased after the initial outpouring at Minneapolis was so rudely and persistently repulsed. No self-respecting God would drown us with something we didn’t want.”43

The General Conference’s Defense Literature Committee formed the Wieland-Short Manuscript Committee which included Frank Yost (1894-1958), M. K. Eckenroth (1914-1975), Frederick Lee (1888-1988), former GC secretary Everrett D. Dick (1898-1989), H. M. Blunden (1885-1974), Arthur L. White, (1907-1991) and chaired by James Robinson. Members of the committee privately saw some value in the manuscript, agreeing that the topic was indeed important and that some denominational writers were too triumphalist in their understanding of the 1888 saga.44 However, the committee also deplored the “hypercritical” tone of the manuscript, its “extreme” conclusions, and its “questionable” use of Ellen White’s writings. It recommended that two people be appointed to study the 1888 issue, along with the “urgent need” to promote a wider understanding of “righteousness by faith.”45

Official Response

After considering the recommendations of the Wieland-Short Manuscript Committee, the Defense Literature Committee replied by mail to Wieland and Short on December 4, 1951, some fifteen months after they received the manuscript. The reply expressed points of agreement along with further critiques by committee members, including a request that Wieland and Short stop sharing copies of the manuscript. While waiting for the Committee to respond, Wieland mailed copies to his supporters, including Claude E. Holmes and a “Brother Jacques” in an effort to spread the word and further build their case against the church.46 Wieland and Short defended themselves in their reply to the Defense Literature Committee, While in a letter to their supporters, Wieland urged submission to “God’s highest authority on earth.”47 Nevertheless, copies of the manuscript continued to spread.

When Wieland returned to the United States on furlough in September 1958, the General Conference again responded to 1888 Re-Examined, citing the work of “certain individuals” who circulated copies of their manuscript.48 The fifty page “Further Appraisal of the Manuscript ‘1888 Re-Examined’” was a deeper, though limited, response which again highlighted Wieland and Short’s perceived misuse of Ellen White’s writings and the misreading of history. Church leaders hoped that this additional information would be enough to quell any questions or misgivings that were critical toward the church.

If church leaders had any hope of calming troubled waters, they were disappointed. The two missionaries responded that October with a seventy page “Answer” to the General Conference’s “Further Appraisal” to defend their “honesty and integrity.”49 The “Answer” characterized both earlier denominational responses as stemming from “denominational pride and stubborn impenitence.”50 Arthur White, who had Wieland in his class in the autumn of 1958, was clearly frustrated with his student and intimated that he knew more about what happened in 1888 than Wieland: “My father was present at the General Conference of 1888, and he was in his prime. . . . He has told me on more than one occasion as to what took place in 1888.”51 Privately, Wieland and Short confessed that their “Answer” might have been an “Ishmael-treatise”—that is, written out of a desire to vindicate themselves rather than waiting on God to vindicate them.52

Wieland and Short met with W. R. Beach, secretary of the General Conference, and others for an interview before being cleared to return to their respective mission fields in early 1959. Beach expressed “full confidence” in Wieland and Short “as workers in God’s cause,” hoping that “permanent good will accrue” as a result.53 President R. R. Figuhr agreed, writing that the “one question” remaining was for the missionaries to tell their followers “that you [Wieland and Short] have left the matter in the hands of the General Conference brethren.”54 Wieland and Short refused, arguing that while they would not agitate the issues themselves, they could not “refrain from repressing other loyal Seventh-day Adventists who may be motivated by Providence.”55 A third report from the “Wieland-Short Manuscript Committee” arrived in 1959 and concluded that “Wieland and Short have failed to prove that our church rejected the light in Minneapolis.”56

The Message Spreads

One supporter was A.L. Hudson (1917-2006), an Oregon printer and first elder of the Baker Seventh-day Adventist Church who agitated on Wieland’s behalf, though independently, in what was seen by the General Conference as a “declaration of war” against the church.57 In early 1959, Hudson printed Wieland’s writings and the General Conference’s responses into a book he titled A Warning and Its Reception. Hudson “bombarded the General Conference with letters and awkward questions” over the issue.58 Hudson hoped to get the North Pacific Union Conference to seriously consider his position. A motion to this effect was made on February 3, 1959, before the Union’s executive committee. While Wieland insisted that he did not personally spread copies of his paper, he also admitted that “we neither approved nor disapproved of what Hudson did.”59 Hudson’s collection of Wieland’s writings along with church replies became the de facto standard edition of the text in North America.

Robert D. Brinsmead (1933-), a young student at Australasian Missionary College (now Avondale University) in the mid-1950s, found a copy of 1888 Re-Examined in 1957 that sparked his interest in likewise reforming the denomination.60 While Brinsmead was reluctant to acknowledge any dependance upon Wieland, Brinsmead accepted Wieland’s claim that Jones and Waggoner represented the most advanced theology of righteousness by faith when he asked, “Why bother with the immature stuff of Luther if Waggoner and Jones were far in advance of Luther and Wesley?”61 (Wieland and Short were adamant, in contrast to L. H. Christian and G. E. Vandeman, that Jones and Waggoner’s contribution to the theme of “righteousness by faith” represented an advancement over the magisterial Protestant Reformers.)

Brinsmead appropriated Wieland’s cause into his own. He sold copies of 1888 Re-Examined and included copies with personal correspondence he had with church leaders. He also republished the writings of Jones and Waggoner—something Wieland encouraged. Brinsmead quoted liberally from 1888 Re-Examined in his Sanctuary Institute syllabus, a course which his followers received in the mail and which contained the essence of his teaching.

While Wieland publicly distanced himself from such efforts, it was not lost upon church leaders that Wieland’s writings had not remained private. LeRoy Froom, retired leader of the GC’s Ministerial Association, spoke for many at church headquarters when he warned Wieland that “your restricted findings have been eagerly seized upon, duplicated, capitalized, and commercialized by the Brinsmeadites,” that “their sale of your document helps keep their contentions going,” and “you are justly classed as tied in with the Brinsmeads.” Froom called Wieland to publicly disavow any association with Brinsmead.62

While Wieland did have misgivings about some of the Brinsmead brothers’ teaching and tactics, Brinsmead and Hudson did more to popularize his ideas than anyone else. To repudiate Brinsmead risked sabotaging the spreading of his ideas. While Wieland did publish a limited repudiation of one of Brinsmead’s followers, Thomas Durst, Froom found it insufficient. Wieland’s repudiation should be made public in a major journal, like Ministry, that carried some weight and had a sizable readership. Durst, according to Froom, turned Wieland’s statement into a “sales gimmick.”63 In the end, Wieland refused to distance himself from Brinsmead in a way that satisfied church leaders.

During the 1950s, Wieland also broadened his views. At one point during his travels for furlough he picked up a copy of Anders Nygren’s book, Agape and Eros. This book would play a profound role in Wieland’s developing theological views. Thereafter, he also began to emphasize God’s agape love. He believed that once someone understood this, that it would change the way church members treated one another. Wieland was taking both new and old ideas and incorporating them into a unique theological mixture that he hoped would impact the church back in Africa.

In Africa

As church leaders grappled with the growing challenge brought about by the 1888 Re-Examined manuscript, nonetheless, church leaders consistently asked the Wielands to serve as missionaries in Africa. In October 1950, they were sent back to Uganda. Wieland reported that “the people are quite advanced,” yet the “Adventist message, on the whole, has not at all been welcome.”64 He believed that some progress was being made. He shared his gratitude when the church received some land from a king of Ankole near Fort-Portal. He had Samson Kanjaru begin building on the land in 1948. By 1951, Ankole Mission Hospital (now Ishaka Adventist Hospital) was completed with an X-ray machine donated by physicians in California.65

In 1953, the Wielands moved to Nairobi, Kenya, where he served as president of the newly formed Central Kenya Mission.66 Wieland encountered the emerging Mau Mau uprising, which he called “bitter, cruel savagery” and caused people to “quit Christianity in droves.”67 Wieland responded by conducting short “Mugambowa Urathi” (“Voice of Prophecy”) studies with a native Kikuyu Bible student, Andrew Gathemia.68 By the end of 1954, 2,000 had enrolled in the Bible school. By the end of 1955, Reuben Theuri became the first Missionary Volunteer Master Guide to be invested in Wieland’s territory.69 “At last,” Wieland wrote in 1956, “a light is burning in Kikuyuland.”70

Wieland was savvy at utilizing media. As editor of the Luganda-language magazine, Omubaka (The Messenger), as well as the Swahili Sikiliza (Listen), he disseminated the Adventist message. He also provided audio recordings of Adventist preaching and music to Kenya Broadcasting Services (now Kenya Broadcasting Corporation).71 At a large evangelistic meeting in Nairobi in 1957, Wieland pioneered “black light” illustrations, leading 96 people to respond to the message.72 

In 1962, Wieland left the Central Kenya Conference to serve as Radio-TV secretary for the East African Union, then under the leadership of Southern African Division president Robert H. Pierson.73 In 1963, his first book, For a Better Africa, was published. The first printing sold out in two months.74 He later claimed that within its first sixteen years in print it sold over a million copies (though given church membership, this seems implausible).75 In 1968, Wieland’s Daniel Reveals the Future was published by Sentinel Publishing Association in South Africa.76 Wieland wrote extensively while in Africa, and his writings remained in circulation across the continent throughout his lifetime.

This extended time in Africa took its toll on Wieland and his family. Missionary life was not always easy. Wieland and his son, Robert E., nicknamed Bobby, was gravely ill with “sleeping sickness” and had a high fever for days. Their daughter, Margaret, nearly drowned. In 1964, Bobby returned to the United States for school. The next year Robert and Grace returned to pastor in California.77

Time in the United States in the 1960s

Despite Wieland’s inability to complete his seminary degree, he still desired to further his education. During their 1958 furlough, he took classes at Potomac University from Leona Running (1916-2014), Edward Heppenstall (1901-1994), Arthur L. White (1907-1991), and Siegfried Horn (1908-1993), among others. In 1962, while in Africa, he attended Helderberg College in South Africa, taking more classes from Roy Allan Anderson (1895-1985) as part of Andrews University’s Extension School. Finally, in May 1965, Wieland graduated with a Master of Arts degree with an emphasis in Theology and Christian Philosophy.78

After spending time for rest, furlough, and study after their missionary endeavors, Wieland joined the Southeastern California Conference. He pastored the Brawley, Banning, and Chula Vista district beginning in 1971. Grace worked as a nurse, sang at church, and led out as a sabbath school superintendent. Wieland’s contentious manuscript continued to challenge church leaders and copies of their manuscript promoting their understanding of righteousness by faith continued to circulate. LeRoy Froom corresponded extensively with Wieland throughout the 1960s and quickly identified the problem as Wieland’s ego, which prevented him from accepting the weight of “thoughtful scholars and devoted leaders.”79 Froom constantly reminded Wieland that he only had a portion of Ellen White’s statements about 1888 and alternated between intimidating Wieland and gently dissuading him from his position.

In 1967, a new committee was formed to meet with Wieland and Short under the presidency of Robert H. Pierson, who they had worked with while in Africa. Neal C. Wilson, as chair, considered Wieland “a dedicated and faithful worker” and believed it was “only proper that we grant his request” for a meeting.80

Between 1962 and 1971, several denominational authors published against Wieland’s understanding of 1888 without specifically naming him in their articles. Church leaders were increasingly concerned about the influence of his ideas and the continued circulation of his manuscript. The first was Norval Pease’s 1962 book, By Faith Alone, which Figuhr endorsed, claiming it “sets the record straight” against the protests of “a few” who were acting “entirely erroneously.”81 Pease stated that the message of righteousness by faith was triumphantly proclaimed throughout the 1890s, even if not accepted by all. In March 1966, A. V. Olson (1884-1963) published Through Crisis to Victory: 1888-1901. Olson argued that “within a few months or a few years of the Minneapolis meeting, the majority of the persons concerned in the opposition to the light of righteousness by faith repented of their wrong course and took their stand for truth and right.”82 Pease reiterated his position in 1969 with his The Faith That Saves, arguing that the 1926 General Conference session was more pivotal than 1888 for spreading an understanding of righteousness by faith. These works were based on deeper historical research into the events of the 1888 Session and its aftermath than anything undertaken by Wieland and Short.

The most important and direct denominational refutation of Wieland and Short’s work was LeRoy Froom’s Movement of Destiny (1971), which demanded an "explicit confession" from Wieland and Short.83 Wieland believed Froom’s call for confession was a provocation and represented an opportunity to speak up, since in 1950 he had been told to keep silent on the 1888 topic by General Conference leaders. Now Movement of Destiny, containing the official imprimatur of Pierson and Wilson in their respective foreword and preface, demanded that Wieland speak up through this "explicit confession." In 1972, Wieland and Short published An Explicit Confession . . . Due the Church in which they “confessed” that they were correct and Froom and other church leaders were wrong.84 Ever afterwards, Wieland and Short produced a steady stream of publications.

Turning the Tide in the 1970s

Under Pierson’s tenure as church president the denominational leadership began to view Wieland much more favorably during the 1970s. First, there was a family connection. Donald K. Short’s daughter, Barbara, married Pierson’s son, Robert, in 1958. Second, there was an ideological connection. Pierson was concerned that worldliness was eroding traditional Adventist values. He sought to rally support in the denomination to uplift more traditional stances. Wieland shared similar concerns to Pierson in this regard. Denominational leaders furthermore were influenced by last generation theology and found much in common with Wieland, who believed in perfectionism (though he rejected the term). Brinsmead’s theological reversal in 1970—wherein he embraced the Protestant reformers’ view of righteousness by faith—finally led Wieland to speak out against the “Brinsmead-Cottrell-Ford agitation.”85 Review editor Kenneth H. Wood joined Wieland in proclaiming that “the blame for the delay [of Christ] rests with man, not God.” The final line to one of Wood’s editorials, derived loosely from a quote by Pierson, shows a general alignment with Wieland’s ideas: “You can help make certain that 1973/1974 shall not be the 1888 of our generation.”86 Pierson would work closely with Wood, Herbert Douglass, and others in promulgating a new revival of righteousness by faith at the 1974 Bible Conferences across North America.

Within this new, more favorable milieu, Pacific Press republished E. J. Waggoner’s book, The Glad Tidings, which Wieland edited removing any parts of the book that could be criticized for pantheism from the new edition. Wieland contributed many articles in church publications, mostly in Africa, and wrote letters to the editor whenever an author mentioned 1888. While his comments continued to agitate for his interpretation of 1888, he did not call upon the church to repent in these letters. Wood published his letters in the Review, even though the letters show largely rehearsed his long-held views.

A new “Wieland and Short Manuscript Review Committee” was formed on May 30, 1973. After Froom’s death in 1974, it met with Wieland and Short at the White Estate offices. Both men were given access to “all of the E.G. White materials” in the vault.87 The committee was established to examine the question: Did the church reject the message of 1888? The committee asked Wieland to explain his ideas of “unconscious sin” and “corporate repentance,” which he did in a paper titled “The Knocking at the Door” (later published in book form).

In 1974 another “Righteousness by Faith Study Committee” was formed, without Wieland and Short as members. Nevertheless, it met with Wieland and Short and issued a report, making some concessions to the missionaries (such as cutting Froom’s demand for Wieland and Short to apologize in future printings of Movement of Destiny). But the committee never acknowledged the need for the denomination to corporately repent. After Froom’s death, Pierson had Movement of Destiny drop out of publication, partially blaming Froom for exacerbating the conflict.88

Wieland was invited to join a third group in 1978—the “Righteousness by Faith Consultation”—which included luminaries and leaders like Desmond Ford, Edward Heppenstall, Charles E. Bradford, Robert H. Pierson, Herbert E. Douglass, Morris Venden, and Neal C. Wilson. “Only a stranger…could be unaware of the deep interest in the doctrine at the present time,” Gordon Hyde reported in the Review. In a nod to Wieland, he added: “Some names have come to be known among us for their association with varying views and emphases.” 89 That Wieland would be asked to participate in such a conference demonstrates a significant shift in denominational policy.

Despite church leaders’ increasing (though still limited) endorsement of Wieland’s views, Wieland also continued to be critiqued during the 1970s. His most thorough respondent was Edwin R. Thiele (1895-1986), a retired missionary to China, archaeologist, Old Testament scholar, and Andrews University professor. Thiele wrote that “It is not merely on some points of minor importance that Brethren Wieland and Short differ from denominational views, but they strike at the very heart of Christian faith.” Thiele argued that if Wieland and Short were right then “that is the way Satan should have it” and strongly suggested that Wieland and Short were motivated by “the spirit of the evil one.”90

Wieland and Short predictably took exception to Thiele’s critique even though they acknowledged that it was “the first serious attempt” to study and respond to 1888 Re-Examined. Wieland and Short defended their view on the fallen nature of Christ, characterizing the increasing number of Adventists who believed in Christ’s unfallen nature (in a call-back to the Questions on Doctrine debate of the late 1950s) as operating out of a “fear of what the Evangelicals will say.”91

In 1979, the Wielands received another call to serve in Africa after 15 years of pastoral ministry in the United States. “It’s like going home,” Robert told a local paper.92 Wieland wrote more books for believers in Africa: The 1888 Message: An Introduction (1980), Africa’s New Bondage (1982), and Will Marriage Work in Today’s World (1983).93

Retirement and Continued Agitation

The Wielands returned from Kenya in 1983. Wieland officially retired on February 1, 1984, after 43 years of denominational service—with two decades of mission service across Africa. That same year, a group of supporters formed the 1888 Message Study Committee, which subsequently held annual meetings to promote Wieland and Short’s unique understanding of what they believed was Jones and Waggoner’s “special message.”

In honor of the centennial anniversary of the 1888 General Conference session, the Ellen G. White Estate published a four-volume set of all of Ellen White’s unpublished writings about 1888; there were several reasons, but one was to demonstrate that White Estate’s interpretation of 1888 best represented the facts. These books, titled The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, became a key resource to help re-evaluate and, from Wieland’s perspective, recover their lost teaching. The White Estate also published a companion volume with supplementary materials that provided historical context. The denomination also published two more books as part of the centennial, The World of Ellen White, edited by Andrews University history professor, Gary Land, and George R. Knight’s biography, From 1888 to Apostasy, The Case of A.T. Jones, which provided a wide-ranging treatment of Jones’ life and teachings, including some critiques of Jones. These new historical materials by Adventist historians proved to be a significant challenge to Wieland and Short’s assertions by widening the study of 1888 from merely being a study of what Ellen White wrote to providing more historical context and much-needed nuance.

Meanwhile, Wieland and Short published a “revised and updated” edition of their 1888 Re-Examined manuscript. The sharp tone of the 1950 original edition was softened to the point where C. Mervyn Maxwell gave it a favorable review in Ministry. Maxwell believed the original was “too intense to read” but that the new edition “speaks lovingly of wayward brethren.”94

Central to Wieland's theology, as noted in this new edition, is that human beings are born legally justified and can only be lost by rejecting the saving grace of God. Christ had the exact fallen sinful nature of Adam after the Fall. Wieland extrapolated that if Christ had the same sinful nature as humanity, humans could be perfect as Christ was. In teaching this he articulated a form of last generation sinless perfectionism similar that of M. L. Andreasen. He also believed that the understanding of righteousness by faith set forth in 1888 is "greater than what the Reformers taught and the popular churches understand today," and the need of the denomination to corporately repent over the rejection of the 1888 message.95

Maxwell represented the reconciliation between the church and Wieland which had begun in the 1970s when Wieland softened his tone and his demands for the church to repent (though he never stopped demanding corporate repentance entirely). In exchange, church leaders were able to tolerate the peculiar parts of Wieland’s views while joining him in combating the “new theology” which they believed was infiltrating the church.

In their retirement, the Wielands moved to Meadow Vista, a small town north of Sacramento. Where they became active in a local church near Weimar, an independent college operated by members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church but not managed or owned by the denomination. Wieland was not one to stay put. In 1989, Wieland visited Spicer Memorial College in India to “do research and to dialogue in preparation for a manuscript on Hinduism.”96 His later years fused interest in missionary work along with continued calls to reform the denomination. Wieland remained consistent in his conviction that, if the church would only corporately repent, it would be transformed, removing any impediment to Christ’s return.

The last decades of Wieland's life were characterized by frequent travel to spread his views about the 1888 message. He attended the 1888 Study Committee-sponsored camp meeting-style conventions. These meetings were, and continue to be, held regionally and sometimes nationally, on the campuses of Adventist colleges and universities. 

In 1994, Wieland and other leaders of the 1888 Message Study Committee met with General Conference president Robert Folkenberg to share their concerns. The meeting resulted in the General Conference Administration Committee (ADCOM) establishing the Primacy of the Gospel Committee. The committee provided a forum for those aligned with Wieland to make their case to church leadership. Between 1995 and 2000 the committee met 8 times for an equivalent of 15 full days over five years. Composed of scholars from the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, members of the 1888 Study Committee, and General Conference representatives, the meeting agendas were arranged by persons from all membership groups. All the important differences were discussed in depth.97

While both sides acknowledged cordial conversations, neither side convinced the other. While areas of agreement were reached, there remained significant areas of disagreement, which ranged from the nature of Christ to the “lack of historical accuracy” in Wieland’s works.98 The committee would be the last of several General Conference evaluations of Wieland and Short's 1888 message.

A car accident in 2000 made it difficult for Grace to walk and caused the Wielands to slow down. Grace passed away in 2008. Wieland died on July 13, 2011, in Walnut Grove, California, and they are buried together in the New Auburn Cemetery in Auburn, California.99


Wieland was an influential missionary and writer who authored dozens of books and papers and was responsible for a renewed interest in the writings of E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones through much of the twentieth century. His interpretation of the issues surrounding the 1888 General Conference session generated considerable controversy within the denomination and his views were never fully accepted by the organized Seventh-day Adventist Church. This controversy centered on his constant call for the Seventh-day Adventist Church to repent for having supposedly rejected Jones and Waggoner’s message of righteousness by faith—a rejection church leaders denied. Wieland believed that only an embrace of his views of righteousness by faith could bring on the Latter Rain and the second coming of Christ.

Wieland’s thesis, first propounded in 1950, came on the heels of the denomination’s centennial commemoration of the “Great Disappointment,” when members had to face the fact that Jesus still had not returned one hundred years after 1844. Readers of Wieland’s 1888 Re-Examined seemed to find an answer: “Church leaders, long before any of us were around, failed us. If we can repent and embrace the message of Jones and Waggoner then the Latter Rain can fall and Jesus will return.”100 Attributing both problem and solution to human agencies, Wieland’s thesis shielded them from other, potentially disturbing explanations of Jesus’s delay.

Wieland’s thesis helped Adventists absorb the shock of financial scandals, the emergence of off-shoots, and controversies over the authority of Ellen White and the investigative judgment that proliferated in the 1970s and 1980s. Wieland could claim that all of this could be explained by the failure of the church to embrace the 1888 message.

Some church leaders misread Wieland as critic in the early stages of leaving the denomination, but Wieland remained and professed his respect for the church his entire life. However, the Primacy of the Gospel Committee concluded that although Wieland and his followers “consistently and genuinely express loyalty… the overall effect of their criticizing the church body and its leadership… has probably been one of the most powerful forces in moving large numbers of Adventists into schismatic criticism and activities.”101 The Primacy of the Gospel Committee understood the implications of the 1888 Message Study Committee claim that the church was proclaiming “a partial understanding of the gospel.” “If the Church is proclaiming a false gospel,” the committee concluded, “it has no right to exist.”102 This statement clarifies that although Wieland professed love and loyalty to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, his arguments, when taken to their logical conclusions, led his followers to see the Church as promoting a false gospel which is responsible for Christ’s failure to return. Despite Wieland’s attempt to spark a reformation in the church through an acceptance of what he saw as the 1888 message, and despite a greater acceptance by church leaders in the 1970s of some of his views, most Adventists are unconvinced by Wieland’s divisive thesis.


“At Rest.” Pacific Union Recorder, November 2011.

“Back to Africa.” Imperial Beach Star-News, 26 July 1979.

“Evangelism in Florida.” Southern Tidings, February 18. 1942.

"Looking Up in Central Kenya.” Southern African Division Outlook, June 15, 1959.

Maxwell, C. Meryvn. ”1888 Re-Examined: 1888-1988, the Story of a Century of Confrontation Between God and His People.” Ministry, February 1988.

Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook. Washington D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1963.

Watts, R. S. “Reorganization of the Kenya Mission Field.” Southern African Division Outlook, February 1,1953.

Wieland, R[obert] J. “At Last—1,000 Members!” Southern African Division Outlook, April 15, 1948.

Wieland, Robert J. Daniel Reveals the Future. A Message for Modern Man. A Verse by Verse  Study and Explanation of Daniel, with Special Consideration Given to Modern Times and Future. Cape Town: Sentinel Publishing Association, 1968.

Wieland, R[obert] J. “Evangelistic Effort in Nairobi.” Southern African Division Outlook, November 15, 1957.

Wieland, Robert J. “Report from Mau Mau Country — Kenya.” Southern African Division Outlook, November 1, 1953.

Williams, Bradley Roy. “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888 Re-Examined and Some of His Effect on Adventists.” Unpublished manuscript, Andrews University, 1978.


  1. These basic biographical details are accessible from https://www.ancestry.com/invite-ui/accept?token=SjH7d4jwb23Af53Ttll1jdGjTz9GfnCjFmQLfE-RVDY= [accessed 12/7/23].

  2. Robert J. Wieland, oral history by Michael W. Campbell, 1995.

  3. Obits., ARH, April 20, 1944, 24, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH19440420-V121-16.pdf; “Conference Worker Taken by Death,” Lake Union Herald, March 28, 1944, 3, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/LUH/LUH19440328-V36-12.pdf.

  4. At Rest,” Pacific Union Recorder, November 2011, 35; Bradley Roy Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888 Re-Examined and Some of His Effect on Adventists” (Unpublished manuscript, Andrews University, 1978), Appendix K.

  5. For his colporteuring activity, see, for example, Southern Tidings, August 19, 1934, 15; “The Colporteur Evangelists,” Southern Tidings, November 29, 1939, 7. For his attendance at Washington Missionary College, see “1937-1938 Roster,” The Sligonian, October 11, 1937, 6.

  6. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 2-3.

  7. In his oral history interview with Michael W. Campbell, Wieland was not certain whether this took place during his junior or his senior year. Dennis Hokama placed it in his junior year. Dennis Hokama, “Out of Africa: 1888 Re-Examined Turns 50,” Adventist Today. 8, no. 2 (March/April 2000): 12, https://atoday.org/site/1/issuepdf/2000-02.pdf.

  8. Robert J. Wieland, oral history by Michael W. Campbell, 1995.

  9. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 3.

  10. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 4.

  11. See “Evangelism in Florida,” Southern Tidings, February 18. 1942, 4.

  12. For her attendance and graduation, see “Florida Sanitarium and Hospital,” Southern Tidings, March 10, 1937, 11; “Florida Sanitarium,” Southern Tidings, October 4, 1939, 7.

  13. These basic biographical details are accessible from https://www.ancestry.com/invite-ui/accept?token=SjH7d4jwb23Af53Ttll1jdGjTz9GfnCjFmQLfE-RVDY=, accessed December 7, 2023.

  14. “Back to Africa,” Imperial Beach Star-News, 26 July 1979, 38.

  15. F. Brock Wells, “Travels in Uganda and Ruanda-Urundi East Africa,” ARH, January 16, 1947, 15; R. J. Wieland, “Report of the President of the Uganda Mission Field,” Southern African Division Outlook, November 1, 1951, 3-4.

  16. “Southern African Division,” ARH, October 30, 1947, 22; Wieland, “Report of the President of the Uganda Mission Field,” 3-4; Kamiza John Byaki, “Ishaka Adventist Hospital,” ESDA, January 29, 2020, https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=9FB1 &highlight=Ishaka|Adventist|Hospital.

  17. For more details on the movement, its start, and the controversy surrounding it, see Kevin Ward, “’Obedient Rebels’—The Relationship between the Early ‘Balokole’ and the Church of Uganda: The Mukono Crisis of 1941,” Journal of Religion in Africa 19, no. 3 (1989): 197-227; Daewon Moon, “The Conversion of Yosiya Kinuka and the Beginning of the East African Revival,” International Bulletin of Mission Research 4, no. 3 (2017): 204-14.

  18. Kevin Ward, “’Tukutendereza Yesu’ The Balokole Revival in Uganda,” Dictionary of African Christian Biography, https://dacb.org/histories/uganda-tukutendereza-yesu/.

  19. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 6.

  20. R.J. Wieland, “At Last—1,000 Members!” Southern African Division Outlook, April 15, 1948, 2.

  21. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 9.

  22. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 7.

  23. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 7.

  24. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 9.

  25. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 9.

  26. It should be noted that as a well-loved long-time missionary and educator, this would have been surprisingly behavior for Rebok. There is no commensurate recollections from Rebok to understand his perspective of events.

  27. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 10.

  28. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 11.

  29. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 13.

  30. George E. Vandeman, Review of The Way to Power and Poise by E. Stanley Jones (Abingdon-Cokesbury, Nashville, 1949) in The Ministry, February, 1950, 8, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/MIN/MIN19500201-V23-02.pdf.

  31. William A. Spicer “The Spreading Cloud of Mysticism,” ARH, April 6, 1950, 3, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH19500406-V127-14.pdf.

  32. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 18.

  33. Robert J. Wieland, oral history by Michael W. Campbell, 1995. Transcript in author’s possession.

  34. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 19.

  35. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 19.

  36. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 21.

  37. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 21.

  38. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix K, 23.

  39. Wieland and Short, 1888 Re-Examined, (1950), 1.

  40. Ibid., 43.

  41. Ellen G. White to O.A. Olsen, Sept. 1, 1892, Lt19d, 1892. Quoted in Wieland and Short, 1888 Re-Examined, (1950), 3.

  42. Wieland and Short, 1888 Re-Examined, (1950), 51.

  43. Ibid., 60.

  44. RG 21, Box 3460, Fld. “Report Wieland-Short MSS,” General Conference Archives, 3

  45. RG 21, Box 3460, Fld. “Report on Wieland-Short MSS,” General Conference Archives.

  46. Robert J. Wieland to Claude E. Holmes, July 31, 1950.

  47. Wieland was alluding to a statement Ellen White had made in Testimonies, vol. 3, 492, where she wrote that the General Conference was “the highest authority that God has upon the earth.”

  48. The report is found in A. L. Hudson, A Warning and Its Reception (Hudson Printing Company, n.d), 259.

  49. See Hudson, A Warning and Its Reception, 306.

  50. See Hudson, A Warning and Its Reception, 379.

  51. Arthur L. White to Merlin Neff, November 21, 1958.

  52. Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short to W.R. Beach, January 21, 1959. http://4eange.com/anglais/LIV/SHO/FOT/EXH/PDF/Exhibit24.pdf

  53. W.R. Breach to Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short, January 22, 1959. http://4eange.com/anglais/LIV/SHO/FOT/EXH/PDF/Exhibit25.pdf

  54. R.R. Figuhr to Wieland and Short, May 1, 1959. http://4eange.com/anglais/LIV/SHO/FOT/EXH/PDF/Exhibit26.pdf

  55. Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short to R.R. Figuhr, June 14, 1959.

  56. Hudson, A Warning and Its Reception, 393.

  57. A.L. Hudson to W.R. Beach, November 23, 1958, RG 21, Box 3460, Fld. “Report Wieland-Short MSS.”

  58. Another Look, 10.

  59. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix H, 2.

  60. For the date of Brinsmead receiving the manuscript, see “Wieland and Short: Another Look,” 12.

  61. Williams, “Robert J. Wieland Before 1888,” Appendix F, 12.

  62. LeRoy E. Froom to Robert J. Wieland, Dec. 4, 1964.

  63. LeRoy E. Froom to Robert J. Wieland, Dec. 21, 1964.

  64. Robert J. Wieland, “Report of the President of the Uganda Mission Field,” Southern African Division Outlook, November 1, 1958, 3.

  65. Robert J. Wieland, “Report of the President of the Uganda Mission Field,” Southern African Division Outlook, November 1, 1958, 3-4. Cf. Kamiza John Byaki, “Ishaka Adventist Hospital,” in ESDA, https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=9FB1

  66. R.S. Watts, “Reorganization of the Kenya Mission Field,” Southern African Division Outlook, February 1, 1953. 4, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/SADO/SADO19530201-V51-02.pdf.

  67. Robert J. Wieland, “Report from Mau Mau Country — Kenya,” Southern African Division Outlook, November 1, 1953, 6, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/SADO/SADO19531101-V51-20.pdf.

  68. R.J. Wieland, “The Kikuyu Voice of Prophecy—Its Beginnings and Future,” Southern African Division Outlook, January 15, 1956, 10, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/SADO/SADO19560115-V54-01.pdf.

  69. Robert L. Osmunson, “First Master Guide Invested in Mau Mau Area,” Southern African Division Outlook, Dec. 15, 1955, 8.

  70. Ibid., 11.

  71. R.J. Wieland, “Evangelistic Effort in Nairobi,” Southern African Division Outlook, November 15, 1957, 4, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/SADO/SADO19571115-V55-11.pdf.

  72. See R. J. Wieland, “Evangelistic Effort in Nairobi,” Southern African Division Outlook, November 15, 1957, 4; John W. Buckley, “Looking Up in Central Kenya,” Southern African Division Outlook, June 15, 1959.

  73. Wieland is referred to as the “Radio and Voice of Prophecy” director in the 1963 Yearbook, but as the “radio-TV secretary” in a 1964 Review article. This might reflect a slight change of title, in which case I went with the latest title. Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook (Washington D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1963), 200, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Yearbooks/YB1963.pdf; C.T.J. Hyde, “New Radio Opportunities in Trans-Africa,” ARH, October 15, 1964, 22, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH19641015-V141-42.pdf.

  74. J.N. Hunt, Southern African Division Outlook, September 15, 1963, 16, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/SADO/SADO19630915-V61-09.pdf.

  75. Joan Broyles, “Back to Africa…”, Imperial Beach Star-News, July 26, 1979, 38, https://www.newspapers.com/image/646337409/?terms=%22Robert%20J.%20Wieland%22&match=1.

  76. Robert J. Wieland, Daniel Reveals the Future. A Message for Modern Man. A Verse by Verse Study and Explanation of Daniel, with Special Consideration Given to Modern Times and Future (Cape Town: Sentinel Publishing Association, 1968).

  77. The Review notes that he returned to pastoring in SoCal by the end of 1965. His permanent return was authorized by the General Conference on July 8, 1965. General Conference Committee Minutes, July 8, 1965, 1116; ARH, December 23, 1965, 21, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH19651223-V142-51.pdf.

  78. W.G.C. Murdoch to L.E. Froom, June 13, 1967. Center for Adventist Research, col. 264, box 13, folder 3.

  79. LEF to RJW, Dec. 4, 1964.

  80. Neal C. Wilson to “The Wieland Committee,” April 17, 1967. Center for Adventist Research, col. 264, box 13, folder 4.

  81. Norval F. Pease, “Foreword,” in By Faith Alone (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2012), 4. Originally published in 1962.

  82. A.V Olson, Through Crisis to Victory, 112. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1966, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/books/tcv1966.pdf.

  83. LeRoy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny (Washington D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1971), 357-8, 364.

  84. Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short, An Explicit Confession . . . Due the Church (n.p., 1972), 1, 19, 38-46; Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short, 1888 Re-Examined: 1888-1988, the Story of a Century of Confrontation Between God and His People, Rev. ed. (Uniontown, OH: 1888 Message Study Committee, 1987), 179-180.

  85. Wieland, “Have We Followed ‘Cunningly Devised Fables’?” Center for Adventist Research, col. 281, box 13, folder 3.

  86. Kenneth H. Wood, “Annual Council Message, 1974,” ARH, November 21, 1974, 2.

  87. N.R. Dower to Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short, July 12, 1973. Found as an exhibit in Faith on Trial, published by Wieland and Short in 1993 and later digitized and made available on the internet.

  88. Jerry Moon interview with Raymond F. Cottrell, November 20, 1988, in Source Book for the Development of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. C. Mervyn Maxwell and P. Gerard Damsteegt (The Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 1989), 67-68.

  89. Gordon M. Hyde, “Righteousness by Faith Consultation in Washington,” ARH, September 7, 1978, 24.

  90. Edwin R. Thiele, “Brief Review of the Theological Concepts of Wieland and Short,” 36-37. Center for Adventist Research, Col. 190, box 102, folder 6.

  91. Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short, “A Response to Edwin R. Thiele…” 15. Center for Adventist Research, Col. 190, box 102, folder 6.

  92. Joan Broyles, “Back to Africa: It’s Like Going Home for Pastor,” Imperial Beach Star-News, July 26, 1979, 38, https://www.newspapers.com/image/646337409/?terms=%22Robert%20J.%20Wieland%22&match=1.

  93. Godfrey K. Sang and Stephen K. Sisei, “Africa Herald Publishing House,” in ESDA, published March 20, 2021, https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=AF7Q

  94. C. Mervyn Maxwell, ”1888 Re-Examined: 1888-1988, the Story of a Century of Confrontation Between God and His People,” Ministry, February 1988.

  95. Wieland and Short, 1888 Re-Examined, 1987 ed., vi-viii.

  96. See GCC minutes, August 17, 1989. https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Minutes/GCC/GCC1989-08.pdf. He was given help by Paul Krishna: https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Minutes/GCC/GCC1990-01.pdf

  97. See the “Primacy of the Gospel Committee,” https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Resources/Primacy%20of%20the%20Gospel%20Committee/Primacy-of-the-Gospel-Committee_English.pdf.

  98. Primacy of the Gospel Committee,” https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Resources/Primacy%20of%20the%20Gospel%20Committee/Primacy-of-the-Gospel-Committee_English.pdf.

  99. “At Rest,” Pacific Union Recorder, November 2011, 35; https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/119702860/grace-wieland.

  100. Robert J. Wieland, Letter to the Editor, ARH, January 26, 1978, 2, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH19780126-V155-04.pdf. Wieland’s letter here shows his belief in human agency when he writes: “the ‘sword as of fire stretched over Battle Creek’ would never have been unsheathed had that gracious message been humbly and sincerely accepted.”

  101. “Primacy of the Gospel Committee,” 5, https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Resources/Primacy%20of%20the%20Gospel%20Committee/Primacy-of-the-Gospel-Committee_English.pdf.

  102. Ibid., 6.


Lucio, Matthew J. "Wieland, Robert Julius (1916–2011)." Encyclopedia of Seventh-day Adventists. March 19, 2024. Accessed May 17, 2024. https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=9ITE.

Lucio, Matthew J. "Wieland, Robert Julius (1916–2011)." Encyclopedia of Seventh-day Adventists. March 19, 2024. Date of access May 17, 2024, https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=9ITE.

Lucio, Matthew J. (2024, March 19). Wieland, Robert Julius (1916–2011). Encyclopedia of Seventh-day Adventists. Retrieved May 17, 2024, https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=9ITE.