the law in Galatians had not been the
real issue at Minneapolis. That insight
brought several confessions; others fol-
lowed later.”
Confession
All three of the ring leaders against the
White-Waggoner-Jones team at Minne-
apolis eventually confessed their error on
righteousness by faith. Smith was the
first to topple. In January 1891, follow-
ing a Week of Prayer reading penned by
Ellen White that emphasized repentance
in relation to righteousness by faith, he
called for a meeting with her and several
leading ministers, and there confessed
many of the errors he had made at Min-
neapolis. Ellen White wrote that Smith
“had fallen on the Rock and was bro-
ken.” Taking Smith by the hand, she
“told him that he had said in his confes-
sion all that he could have said.” The
whole experience, reported by General
Conference president O. A. Olsen, cre-
ated “quite a sensation in Battle Creek,
and the Lord is working for us in a special
manner, and the way is opening up for
others to clear themselves.” !® Smith’s
confession was followed in the summer of
1892 by that of J. H. Morrison, who had
represented Butler as the chief spokes-
man for the traditionalists on the Gala-
tians issue at Minneapolis. *°
Butler was the last of the old guard
Minneapolis leaders to confess his error
on righteousness by faith. “I fully be-
lieve,” he penned in June 1893, “that
God has blessed greatly to the good of His
people and the cause the greater agita-
tion of the doctrines of justification by
faith, [and] the necessity of appropriating
Christ's righteousness by faith.” Butler
E. J. Waggoner
claimed that he had never believed that
he could be saved by his good works, but
now was “well satisfied that additional
light of great importance has been shin-
ing upon these subjects.” He noted that
he “freely endorsed” what he had previ-
ously resisted. *°
Perhaps the most revealing episode in
regard to the unity of the denomina-
tional leadership on both sides of the
righteousness by faith issue was a meeting
called by Jones, Smith, and Dr. J. H.
Kellogg at the latter’s home during the
1893 General Conference session. Those
present were O. A. Olsen, Dan T. Jones,
Smith, W. W. Prescott, A. T. Jones,
and Kellogg — certainly a strong-minded
group that represented the various
strands of the struggle. The participants
unanimously voted the following resolu-
tion: “That, in view of the facts and ex-
“planations elicited by this conference,
there is no ground whatever for controversy
or disagreement respecting the doctrine of
righteousness by faith or concerning the re-
lation of faith and works.” ?! Their una-
nimity on those points, however, did not
mean that they agreed on the law in Ga-
latians. Smith and Butler, as we shall see,
had difficulties on that point until their
deaths.
Apostasy
If Butler and Smith tended to come
further into the light on righteousness by
faith during the 1890s, one of the great
tragedies in Adventism during the same
period was that Jones and Waggoner
tended, as the decade progressed, toward
a darkness created through pushing too
far points related to the indwelling
Christ. As a result, by 1891 they had
gone to extremes in faith healing along
holiness lines and were rebuked by Ellen
White.?? By 1894 they had slipped off
the track in their teaching about organi-
zation. In the following years they taught
that all human organization was wrong —
that the only correct church organization
was where each individual was directly
ruled by the Holy Spirit.?* By the spring
of 1889 Jones was teaching concepts of
“translation faith” that the Holy Flesh
movement would build upon. In 1898 he
wrote in an editorial that “Perfect holi-
ness embraces the flesh as well as the
spirit.” #* By 1897 Waggoner had moved
into pantheism—a logical extension if
the doctrine of the indwelling Christ is
taken too far. All of these problems and
tendencies can be viewed as perversions
Discussion questions:
1. How should the church handle
those who claim to have new light on
questions on which the church has
had a consistent historical teaching?
Would you answer differently for “pe-
ripheral” issues than for those that are
central to our faith?
2. What was wrong with George
Butler’s high esteem for the General
Conference presidency?
3. Why do you think such a small
issue as which kingdoms made up the
10 horns became such a hotly debated
issue in the church?
4. Would you have voted in favor
of the 1886 resolution about teaching
doctrinal views not held by the
majority?
5. Why, in your opinion, did Ellen
White refuse to take the role of theo-
logical authority and settle the
debate?
6. How would you describe the |
role that Ellen White took during the
1888 General Conference session?
7. Uriah Smith’s 1891 confession
was fully adequate, yet he did not
change his views on the law in Gala-
tians. What do you suppose his con-
fession involved?
8. Does the apostasy of Jones and
Waggoner prove that their teaching
about righteousness by faith was
erroneous’?
of the doctrine of righteousness by
faith.’
Along with his overemphasis on holi-
ness, by 1891 Jones was teaching ex-
tremes on church and state relationships
that Ellen White and other church lead-
ers repeatedly rebuked. By 1894 he was
sponsoring Anna Rice as a second Ad-
ventist prophet, claiming that there were
more to come.>® Despite these difficul-
ties, Ellen White stood firmly behind
Jones and Waggoner and their 1888 mes-
sage of righteousness by faith. Up
through at least 1896 she repeatedly as-
serted that they were God's messengers
in uplifting Christ. On the other hand, it
goes beyond the facts to infer that she
approved all their extensions of the basic
message of righteousness by faith. In fact,
she did not even agree with all their the-
ology or scriptural interpretations related
to the issue at the 1888 meetings.*’
It can be conjectured that despite her
many pointed private rebukes to them
during that period, her repeated public
MINISTRY/FEBRUARY/1988 13