The General Conference Committee "faced a serious managerial problem. How could it ensure that an independent, "autonomous" senior college board follow its direction in the matter of ministerial education and the employment of theology teachers? How could it ensure the provision of safe yet effective ministerial training? How should the college board manage an unorthodox teacher? The year was 1888, and the issues were serious and complex.
The following little-known episode from one of the most painful years in Seventh-day Adventist Church history may offer insights and provide a context for some of Ellen White's strongest statements on academic freedom.
Traditional versus innovative
Concerned to ensure that ministers in training were exposed to the best in biblical and practical instruction, the General Conference Committee, in April 1888, had formally recommended that the Board of Battle Creek College appoint the energetic 38- year-old Alonzo T. Jones as its Bible teacher. At the time he was teaching Bible and history at Healdsburg College in California, and his fresh insights had impressed W. C. White and his mother.
At Battle Creek, Professor E. B. Miller had become rather staid and stale, and would benefit from a transfer to Healdsburg, to take Jones's place. Influential members of the GC Committee, W. C. White and W. W. Prescott, had previously discussed the idea and persuaded the GC Committee to act. Besides, in the new year, they planned to bring in ministers from the field for a five-month intensive "in-service" training course, which needed a fresh, relevant, cutting-edge approach.
But the college board, dominated by more traditional thinkers, were not persuaded that this was a safe move. Although Jones was a bright and charismatic teacher, he was also outspoken and had begun to develop a reputation for challenging the status quo. Wasn't he too unorthodox? And, in the view of Review editor and senior board member, Uriah Smith, the unorthodoxy was neither trivial nor inconsequential.
Jones had allied himself with Elliot Waggoner, the brash and even younger editor (31) of the Signs of the Times, in advocating a dangerous reinterpretation of Galatians 3:24. In suggesting that the Galatians text referred to the "moral law" and not the temporary and shadowy Mosaic "ceremonial law," these teachers were deemed to be on extremely dangerous ground. Such a view, in Smith's opinion, undermined "the pillars of the faith." 1
It overthrew the validity of the church's teaching on a central doctrine, the seventh-day Sabbath. And, as well, it negated the teaching of the Spirit of Prophecy for, as Smith pointed out, Mrs. White had previously indicated such teaching was wrong. The view of the "moral law" in Galatians, simple and spiritually insightful though it might sound to the uninitiated, threatened to undo teachings "vital to the existence of our faith," explained the respected editor, who was also the senior (although part-time) Bible teacher at the college.2 Many respected pastors and church leaders agreed.
Furthermore, Jones had recently adopted a new interpretation of Revelation 13 and the mark of the beast and the Sunday law. Uriah Smith objected that this new teaching on eschatology contradicted all the church had published on the topic. It threatened the reputation of the Church and "undermined the positions held for 30 years." No wonder parents in California were threatening not to send their children to Healdsburg if such things were being taught there.3
The transfer of Jones to Battle Creek College would, therefore, not receive Smith's endorsement. It was obvious that there was no consensus. Thus, the board, after "lengthy discussion," declined to make the appointment. "No formal action was taken."4
Differences: Battle Creek College and the General Conference
Six months later, in October, the theological controversy in the Minneapolis General Conference session proved the point for leaders such as GC President Butler and editor Smith. Jones's role in the troubles vindicated their caution. The fact that he had taken such a "prominent part" at the conference in "pressing vigorously points of doctrine, concerning which there exists differences of opinion among the body of Seventh-day Adventists," did not win him friends in Battle Creek.
Nor did it make things easier for Smith and Butler when the idea of a transfer arose again at the college board meeting.5 Wasn't it clear, they argued, that Jones was simply not a safe teacher? How could they have him teaching ideas in one Bible class that were at variance with what Smith himself would be teaching in another? So the board again discussed the proposal "at considerable length" and decided to appoint a solid, middle of the road (but uninspiring) teacher named Frank D. Starr.
The action of the board, however, complicated things for the General Conference Committee. They had other plans for F. D. Starr, and this independent, noncooperation on the part of the college board was not acceptable to the GC Committee. They requested a highly unusual "joint meeting" of the college board together with the GC Committee.
The brethren gathered in the Review office on a Thursday morning. Board members again stated publicly the reasons for their decision, and a long animated discussion fol lowed.6 It was finally resolved that the college president, Professor Prescott; the chair of the board, George Butler; and Smith himself would interview Jones about his views and the possibility of his teaching position at the college.
Within the next 36 hours, the interview panel had a long conference with the unconforming teacher. Whether Jones had been advised beforehand, whether he really wanted the job, or whether he was simply intimidated by the weighty panel is not clear. In any case, he seemed to satisfy them. He conceded "the right of the board to determine what views should be presented," and he assured them "in a very positive manner" that "if he should be employed to assist in the Lectures, he would not knowingly teach any opinions contrary to those which the Board desired to be taught.. ."7
Views and role of Ellen White
Although such acquiescence may have pleased Smith and Butler, Mrs. White found it incomprehensible that just two men should be considered the guardians of the teachings for Seventh-day Adventists.8 She had delivered an impassioned speech at the Minneapolis General Conference session a month earlier (October 21) dealing with this very notion the inappropriateness of a few people being guardians of doctrinal orthodoxy.
The atmosphere had been oppressive and supercharged at Minneapolis, as it still was at Battle Creek head quarters a month after the session.
Mrs. White's message seems not to have registered with editor Smith, who already had resigned from membership on the General Conference Committee to protest the way affairs were being run.
Matters were made worse by an incident revolving around the question of whether Jones should even be allowed to preach in Battle Creek. It seems that on this same weekend (November 24), it had been suggested that A. T. Jones be invited to preach at the Battle Creek Tabernacle. The church would be blessed, it was said, by his innovative insights on theology and eschatology as they related to current Sunday law issues. Senior editor Smith objected, however, saying that he could agree to such an invitation only if Jones would agree not to speak on the new themes. Prescott was commissioned to talk to Jones, who agreed to the conditions.
When Mrs. White heard of the strange goings-on, she was incensed. What an "incomprehensible tug of war" this was turning out to be.9
The college board was reconvened. George Butler, the board chair, reported on the interview. Very strong differences of opinion were voiced, although these were expressed "in a brotherly spirit." Finally, in one of the longest actions on record in its minutes, the board voted to accept the General Conference recommendation and appoint Jones as Bible teacher, under the stipulated conditions. The vote was split 60/40. The chair abstained, and members felt such strong convictions that individual votes were recorded.10
Mrs. White worried about the larger issues. Could a church continue to grow in truth with these kinds of attempts to preserve orthodoxy and maintain the status quo? She thought not.
Prior to the Jones affair at Battle Creek College, someone had framed a resolution at the General Conference session that "nothing should be taught in the college contrary to that which has been taught. . . ."11 Ellen White spoke vigorously against the resolution and voted against it. She felt deeply, she said, for she knew that "whoever framed that resolution was not aware of what he was doing."
Later she was again horrified when she heard that Jones should not be invited to preach at the Tabernacle because "he took rather strong positions" on Revelation 13. And she was aghast that "arrangements were made to shut him out of the school for fear something should come in that would be at variance" with what had been previously taught at the college. "Was this a conscientiousness inspired by the Spirit of God?" she asked. In her view, the spirit of such inspiration was not "from God, but from another source."12
In her speech at the General Conference, Mrs. White had been very pointed in her opposition to these inappropriate attempts to ensure a status quo orthodoxy. In words that are troubling, but in some ways refreshingly radical, she declared that, "Instructors in our schools should never be bound about by being told that they are to teach only what has been taught hitherto. Away with such restrictions. There is a God to give the message His people shall speak.... That which God gives his servants to speak today would not perhaps have been present truth twenty years ago, but it is God's message for this time." 13
It was her view that "the Lord has need of men who are spiritually sharp and clear sighted, men worked by the Holy Spirit, who are certainly receiving manna fresh from heaven." She was sure on that occasion in 1888, that the time had come when "through God's messenger, the scroll is being unrolled to the world."14
Of course, Mrs. White did not advocate unfettered libertarianism. She stoutly defended the faith of the fathers. The landmarks and pillars of the truth were of vital significance to her; they described the self-identity of the church and provided the basis for its mission. Mrs. White was deeply committed to the unity of the church, but she also saw the need for the church community to live with the creative tension between preserving the faith of the fathers and having a faith that was relevant "present truth."
"The God of heaven sometimes commissions men to teach that which is regarded as contrary to the established doctrines," she wrote to Haskell eight years later, in 1896, trying to help him open his mind to accept Prescott's new Christological interpretation of church teachings (that's another story!).
What can we learn?
This episode suggests that some approaches for ensuring orthodoxy are clearly inappropriate if they put authority for orthodoxy in the hands of very small groups, or if they reflect a disposition to control the minds of others, or if they reveal a phobia about things new.
The task of balancing openness to the freshness of the Spirit with the need for church unity and the ensuring of orthodoxy is a demanding task for any church leader today, just as it was in Ellen White's day. But then, when established reactionaries such as Smith and Butler could argue that a new idea was dangerous and under mined the essentials of the faith, at least the voice of the prophet could insist on openness and suggest other wise with a "No, I don't see this as vital. What is more vital is to manifest a Christian spirit."
Today the church no longer has the living voice at Elmshaven or in committees to respond to specific new ideas, new circumstances, and new settings. But the Lord who gifted Mrs. White has indeed gifted the church and promised the church that the same Spirit, if allowed, will guide us into all truth (John 16:13).
1 Uriah Smith to A. T. Robinson, Sept. 21, 1892.
2 Ibid.
3 Ellen G. White (EGW) to Brother Healey, Dec. 10, 1888.
4 BCC Board Minutes, April 8, 1888.
5 Ibid., November 13, 1888. Although Butler had been replaced as GC president and Smith had submitted his resignation from the GC Committee, both retained their roles as college trustees.
6 BCC Board Minutes, Nov. 22, 1888.
7 Ibid., Nov. 25, 1888.
8 EGW to Brother Healey, Dec. 9, 1888.
9 EGW to Mary White, W-82 -1889.
10 BCC Board Minutes, November 25, 1888. A month later, Butler submitted his resignation as chair of the board. He had received a scolding letter from Mrs. White for his attitudes. Out of office as GC president, he argued he would not be much use to the board. His resignation was not accepted, but he still did not attend any meetings during the next 12 months. Vice chair, Uriah Smith, directed affairs.
11 EGW, Manuscript 16, 1889.
12 Ibid.
13 EGW, Manuscript 8a, 1888, a talk to the ministers delivered on October 21, 1888.
14 EGW, Manuscript 8a, 1888.
