G. I. Butler
theological innovations in another area,
publishing them in the Signs, and teach-
ing them at Healdsburg. His special area
of irritation to the “leading brethren”
concerned the identification of the 10
kingdoms of Daniel 7. An untiring stu-
dent of history and prophecy, Jones con-
cluded that the historic Adventist posi-
tion on the kingdoms had been wrong.
Such a conclusion put him crosswise
with Uriah Smith, author of Thoughts on
Daniel and the Revelation and the
heretofore-unchallenged interpreter of
prophecy in Adventist circles. Jones's
conclusion, thundered Butler, proved
him to be a troublemaker, since he advo-
cated an interpretation “contrary to the
long-established faith of our people
taken 40 years ago.” He bitterly com-
plained that “a crop of young men are
rising who venture to publish their pet
opinions broadcast to the world, which
are essentially different and contrary to
the long-established position held
among us.” !!
The Smith-Butler coalition sought to
crush the new teachings in a behind-the-
scenes battle at the 1886 General Con-
ference session, but after struggling for
several hours the investigating commit-
tee split in a four to five vote. “The ques-
tion,” wrote Butler, “was whether we
should take this into the Conference and
have a big public fight over it.” !? Not
willing to risk an open confrontation on
such a divisive issue, Butler settled for
presenting a compromise position before
a business session of the delegates. As a
result, the business session approved a
resolution that “doctrinal views not held
by a fair majority of our people” were not
to be made a part of the instruction in
12 MINISTRY/FEBRUARY/1988
Adventist schools or published in de-
nominational papers “as if they were the
established doctrines of this people, be-
fore they are examined and approved by
the leading brethren of experience.” >
That resolution, however, did little to
solve the issues. They continued to smol-
der until the 1888 General Conference
meetings, when they became major
agenda items. Their inclusion on the
agenda infuriated the General Confer-
ence president. “My only regret,” he
penned on the eve of the meetings, was
“that Elder Smith and I did not just wade
into them [the new teachings] and show
them up in the widest channels possible”
when they were first put in print. *
Butler, who was ill, could not attend
the 1888 meetings. He did, however,
send a telegram to his followers to “stand
by the old landmarks.” As a result, his
followers dug in for battle. They would
not let down their stricken leader or deny
traditional Adventist orthodoxy. Ellen
White, on the other hand, counseled the
delegates to disregard the messages But-
ler was sending from Battle Creek. >
During the 1888 meetings, Smith
wrangled with Jones over the identity of
the 10 kingdoms of Daniel 7, and Wag-
goner and J. H. Morrison (president of
the Iowa Conference and a skilled de-
bater) presented opposing positions on
the law in Galatians. Ellen White,
meanwhile, sought to mediate between
the sides and called for openness, Chris-
tian courtesy, and honest Bible study.
She did not assume the role of a theolog-
ical authority, nor did she seek to settle
the arguments by using her own writ-
ings—even though the old guard had
placed her interpretation of the law in
Galatians at the center of their rationale
for maintaining the traditional position.
The continuing controversy
The conference settled none of the
theological differences. Jones and Smith
continued to oppose each other on pro-
phetic interpretation throughout the
1890s. More important, however, was
the continuing bitterness over the prob-
lem in Galatians.
While it was the dispute about the law
in Galatians that caused the furor at the
1888 meetings, that issue was not central
to the minds of Jones and Waggoner after
the session. Waggoner had preached
righteousness by faith in Christ in the
Galatians context, and it was that sal-
vific emphasis that he and Jones, along
with Ellen White, continued to preach
during the next few years as they took the
message of Minneapolis to the people.
Between 1888 and 1891 they spoke at
Adventist gatherings across the nation as
they uplifted Christ, His love, and His
righteousness. The title of Waggoner’s
1890 book, Christ and His Righteousness,
sums up their emphasis. Their united
work, however, was broken up in 1891 by
Ellen White’s departure for Australia and
Waggoner’s assignment as editor of
Present Truth in Great Britain—a posi-
tion he held until 1902. Jones, mean-
while, remained in the United States.
Along with championing the message of
righteousness by faith, he served as the
denomination’s foremost leader in the
cause of religious liberty. In 1897 he re-
placed Smith as editor of the Review and
Herald.
The Smith-Butler forces did not fare
so well in the post-Minneapolis period.
They continued to harbor strong feelings
over the Galatians issue and the chal-
lenge to their authority. Their emotional
reaction to the problem and to the per-
sonalities of Jones and Waggoner colored
their reaction to the message of righ-
teousness by faith, which Butler had up-
lifted in the Review in 1884 and Smith
repeatedly claimed to believe.'® They
seemed unable to disentangle that mes-
sage from their stand on Galatians at the
1888 General Conference session.
Soon after the 1888 meetings, Butler
retired to Florida in broken health. Al-
though he recovered after a short period,
his wife became an invalid the next year.
As aresult, he was out of denominational
employment for 12 years, supporting
himself by growing oranges.
Smith remained as editor of the Review
until 1897, sparring with Jones over pro-
phetic interpretation and other issues.
His editorship during those years, how-
ever, was a downhill battle in the face of
the popularity of the charismatic Jones,
who, by late 1892, had become the most
listened to ministerial voice in American
Adventism. In 1897 Smith received his
ultimate defeat when Jones was ap-
pointed editor and he was made Jones's
assistant editor on the Review staff.
During the early 1890s the
Smith-Butler forces began to come out of
the fog regarding the doctrine of righ-
teousness by faith as it related to the 1888
controversy. The first major turning
point took place at the ministers’ school
held in Battle Creek during the spring of
1890. During those meetings many of
the old-guard ministers began to see that