goner and A. T. Jones, who served as
coeditors of the Signs of the Times and
also as Bible teachers at Healdsburg Col-
lege. Among their friends were W. C.
White, S. N. Haskell, and C. H. Jones.
Initially, the differences between
these two groups centered on their inter-
pretation of two passages of Scripture.
The eastern brethren believed that the
Huns were one of the 10 kingdoms of
Daniel 7, and that the “added” law of
Galatians 3:19-25 was the Jewish cere-
monial system. The western brethren,
on the other hand, favored the Ale-
manni instead of the Huns, and held that
the added law was the moral law.
The fact that Waggoner and Jones
were comparatively young men — in their
30s—while Butler and Smith were in
their 50s tended to exacerbate the situa-
tion. Butler found it difficult to believe
that two editorial fledglings could possi-
bly understand the Bible better than he
did.
Seeds of conflict
The estrangement between the two
sides began when Waggoner published
his views on Galatians 3 in the Signs of the
Times of September 11, 1884. His expla-
nation that the added law was the moral
code flatly contradicted the interpreta-
tion accepted by Butler and Smith and
probably by most contemporary Advent-
ists as well. It so happened that E. J.
Waggoner's father, J. H. Waggoner, had
taken a similar position 30 years earlier.
The elder Waggoner had maintained in
1854 that “not a single declaration” in
Galatians “referred to the ceremonial or
Levitical law.” The epistle, he wrote,
“treats solely of the moral law.” ’
Ellen White apparently settled the
earlier controversy by stating that Wag-
goner’s interpretation was wrong.® For
the next three decades the question of
the law in Galatians did not receive
much attention; at least the issue did not
provoke further controversy. Smith,
Butler, and others felt sure that Gala-
tians 3:19 referred to the ceremonial sys-
tem. They also believed that Ellen
White supported this view, since she had
rejected J. H. Waggoner’s position.”
Now the younger Waggoner, in a
sense, had thrown down the gauntlet and
deliberately revived the controversy. He
outlined his position in a series of nine
articles published in the Signs from July 8
to September 2, 1886. Butler was in-
censed. He considered the articles an af-
front to his leadership. He decided to
settle the question once and for all at the
1886 General Conference session. Hur-
riedly he produced an 85-page pamphlet
and distributed it to the delegates gath-
ered at Battle Creek for the General
Conference session in November of that
year. In this tract Butler stated: “The
writer acknowledges considerable sur-
prise that during the last year or two the
subject [of the law in Galatians] has been
made quite prominent in the instructions
given to those at Healdsburg College pre-
paring to labor in the cause; also in the
lessons passing through the Instructor,
designed for our Sabbath schools all over
the land, and in numerous argumenta-
tive articles in the Signs of the Times, our
pioneer missionary paper, thus throwing
these views largely before the reading
public not acquainted with our faith.
Thus, strong and repeated efforts have
been made to sustain the view that the
moral law is the subject of the apostle’s
discourse in the most prominent texts
under discussion in the letter to the Ga-
latians. . . .
“We decidedly protest against the
bringing out of controverted views in the
manner indicated, concerning matters
upon which our peopleare notagreed.” 1°
At the 1886 General Conference ses-
sion a theological committee of nine
members was appointed to study the
point at issue, which they did immedi-
ately. Something of the tension develop-
ing between the two groups of church
leaders can be felt in Butler's letter to
Ellen White, written shortly after the
close of the meeting. “Brother E. J. Wag-
goner came on . . . loaded for the con-
flict,” he wrote. “The theological com-
mittee was ordered. . . . It stood, four—
Haskell, Whitney, Wilcox, and Wag-
goner, in favor of the Signs position—
five, Smith, Canright, Covert, J. H.
Morrison, and self, opposed. We had an
argument of several hours, but neither
side was convinced. The question was
whether we should take this into the con-
ference and have a big public fight over it
or not. | could not advise it, for [ thought
it would be most unhappy and result only
in heat and debate.” !
Public confrontation at that meeting
was not avoided altogether; one resolu-
tion aimed at Waggoner was passed, |
while another was defeated. The confer-
ence voted to ask Adventist editors “not
to permit doctrinal views not held by a
fair majority of our people . . . to be
published in our denominational papers,
as if they were the established doctrines
of this people, before they are examined
and approved by the leading brethren of
experience.”
However, Butler's resolution that
called for a censure of the Signs for pub-
lishing the nine articles on Galatians ear-
lier that year was voted down. Butler la-
mented: “I think, in justice, it ought to
have been passed. But this was very dis-
tasteful to Brother Haskell and some oth-
ers, that even a word should be said im-
plying that the Signs had made a
mistake.” 1?
Ellen White’s role
In an endeavor to bring about unity
and a measure of peace, Ellen White,
who was in Europe, wrote the disputants
on both sides and pointed out their
faults. She took Waggoner and Jones to
task for advancing their ideas before the
students at Healdsburg College and for
publishing them before the world.
Then, six weeks later, after reading the
first few pages of Butler's pamphlet on
Galatians, Ellen White admonished
him, “I think you are too sharp.” 1°
Asa courtesy to Ellen White, the 1887
General Conference session was held in
Oakland, California, only about 60 miles
from her home in Healdsburg. Public dis-
cussion of the Galatians question was
avoided, but, according to Elder Butler,
there were some serious private discus-
sions of the subject. He later informed
Ellen White: “At the Oakland General
Conference last year he [Waggoner] took
some of our ministers in private confer-
ence over this subject and read them a
long review he had prepared of my pam-
phlet, and did every way his ingenuity
could invent to impress his view of the
subject. . . . I have no evidence that
Elder E. J. Waggoner or those backing
him ever have any idea of letting up, but
think they still propose to fight this to the
bitter end.” ©
Public discussion of the Galatians is-
sue and other controverted points now
became impossible to avoid. In fact,
early in 1887 Ellen White had already
recognized it as inevitable. She told But-
ler at that time: “The matter now has
been brought so fully before the people by
yourself as well as Dr. Waggoner, that it
must be met fairly and squarely in open
discussion. . . . You circulated your pam-
phlet; now it is only fair that Dr. Wag-
goner should have just as fair a chance as
you have had. I think the whole thing is
not in God’s order. But brethren, we
must have no unfairness.” 7
MINISTRY/FEBRUARY/1988
5