governor of Vermont from 1826 to
1828), adopted this high view of leader-
ship for himself. He saw himself not only
as a strong leader who should rule from
the top, but also as a theological watch-
dog for the denomination. After all, he
wrote to Ellen White just prior to the
convening of the 1888 session, did not he
hold “the highest position that our peo-
ple could impose” ??
Mrs. White indicated that she was not
nearly as impressed as Butler with his
lofty view of the denomination’s presi-
dency. “I fail,” she wrote, “to discover in
your letter the right ring. . . . You must
not think that the Lord has placed you
[and Elder Smith] in the position that
you now occupy as the only men who are
to decide as to*whether any more light
and truth shall come to God’s people.”
She further chided Butler for having
mingled his own “natural traits of char-
acter” with his work, for possessing false
ideas of his position in the denomina-
tion, for turning his mind into “wrong
channels,” and for referring to Jones and
Waggoner as editorial fledglings.’
Such counsel, unfortunately, did not
turn the mentally exhausted president
from his course. Near the end of the 1888
General Conference session Mrs. White
wrote that “Elder Butler . . . has been in
office three years too long and now all
humility and lowliness of mind has de-
parted from him. He thinks his position
gives him such power that his voice is
infallible.” * Given this early run-in with
administrative “kingly power,” it is per-
haps not surprising that both Jones and
Waggoner later turned against the con-
cept of denominational organization and
A. T. Jones.
especially the presidential system.’
Uriah Smith
Uriah Smith was of much the same
mind as Butler. Having been with the
Review since the early 1850s, he had by
1888 served as its editor for nearly 25
years. In many ways he saw himself more
as the journal’s proprietor than its editor.
Like Butler, Smith viewed himself as a
guardian of theological orthodoxy.
Smith succinctly stated his editorial pol-
icy inregard to Jones in 1892: “Having by
long study, and years of observation in
the work, become settled on certain
principles, I am not prepared to flop over
at the suggestion of every novice.” ©
From all indications it is safe to surmise
that he held the same position in regard
to Jones and Waggoner in 1888.
Neither he nor Butler had the slightest
inclination to “flop over” in the face of
the younger men from California.
The attitude exhibited by the younger
men did not help matters much. AsEllen
White put it in 1887, Waggoner lacked
“humility” and “meekness,” while Jones
needed to cultivate “practical godli-
ness.” 7 Jones's personality was particu-
larly calibrated against winning friends
and gaining the sympathy of his enemies.
Mrs. White repeatedly warned him
against his harsh speech toward others,
but Jones found it almost impossible to
distinguish between frankness and harsh-
ness. This was particularly damaging be-
cause he considered frankness a virtue.
Alonzo T. Jones
Formerly a frontier Army sergeant,
Jones maintained an authoritarian de-
meanor. That personality trait, coupled
with his cocksure belief that he was al-
ways right, did much to set a negative
tone at the Minneapolis meetings. At
one point Jones blurted out to the dele-
gates that he should not be held respon-
sible for Smith’s ignorance of certain his-
torical details related to Daniel 7.°
His manner did not mollify the “non-
flopping” Smith, but caused him and his
friends to become more defensive against
the “new” ideas.
Ellet J. Waggoner
At 33 Waggoner was the youngest of
the major contestants at Minneapolis.
He earned an M.D. degree in New York
City in 1878, but became dissatisfied
with medical practice and entered the
ministry. In 1884 he was called to assist
his father, J. H. Waggoner, who was ed-
itor of the Signs of the Times.
The major theological turning point
in young Waggoner’s life took place at a
Jones’s personality
was particularly
calibrated against
winning friends and
gaining the
sympathy of his
enemies.
campmeeting at Healdsburg, California,
in October 1882. During a discourse he
experienced a vision-like encounter.
“Suddenly,” he reported, “a light shone
about me, and the tent seemed illu-
mined, as though the sun were shining; I
saw Christ crucified for me, and to me
was revealed for the first time in my life
the fact that God loved me, and that
Christ gave Himself for me personally.”
As a result of this experience, Waggoner
dedicated his life to discovering “God’s
love for individual sinners” in the Bible,
and to preaching that message.’
[t was that “vision” that eventually led
Waggoner into an in-depth study of the
book of Galatians, a study that would
bring him into direct confrontation with
the Smith-Butler forces at the 1888 Gen-
eral Conference session. True to his 1882
experience, Waggoner discovered the
gospel in the book of Galatians. Accord-
ing to Waggoner the law in Galatians was
the Ten Commandments. Thus, as he
summed up his position, the ten-com-
mandment/schoolmaster law brings us
“ ‘unto Christ, that we might be justified by
faith.” 10
Issues developed before 1888
That position, which Waggoner be-
gan to publish in the Signs and to teach at
Healdsburg College between 1884 and
1886, flew in the face of 30 years of Ad-
ventist theology. Ever since the
mid-1850s the denomination’s leading
ministers had taught that the law in Ga-
latians was the ceremonial law. Butler
and Smith viewed Waggoner’s position
as undermining the denomination’s the-
ology of the Sabbath at a time when the
United States was facing strong pressure
for national Sunday legislation.
Jones, meanwhile, was stirring up
MINISTRY/FEBRUARY/1988 11