Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis

121/277

A. W. Spalding, Aug. 3, 1952

CRESTVIEW
gardens
Collegedale Tennessee
August 3, 1952
Dear [Addressee and Address blotted out],

Elder Nichol has sent to me your letter of July 27, requesting that I answer it. You find, as you believe, in the article appearing under my name in the Review and Herald of July 10, this year, views contradictory to what is quoted from Sister White’s letters in the issue of March 13, 1952. MMM 347.1

If there is contradiction between what I write and what Sister White wrote, you will of course held to Sister White. So will I. Sister White, besides being a main figure in the Minneapolis Conference, relied upon the inspiration of the Spirit of God; I have no such distinction. And I have no desire to justify myself in any disputation, I make many mistakes, and when I am convinced that I have made a mistake, I believe those who know me will testify that I make due emends. If it would abolish ail controversy, at this late day, about the Minneapolis Conference and its aftermath, I should be willing to give a blanket confession to having misrepresented the event, because, even if I were not convinced, the weight of others testimony, and the consciousness that I am very faulty, word throw the balance against me. MMM 347.2

But it seems to me that the representations which have been made in recent times, over the spirit of the Minneapolis Conference, the controversies there, and the state of the Seventh-day Adventist church since then, are not calculated to raise the level of spirituality among us; and such revival and reformation surely is the true objective of every lover of truth and well-wisher of the church. In certain cases, the spirit in which the disputation has been carried on by purported advocates of the doctrine of justification by faith, and more particularly partisan support of A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, has been more in the type of censure than of healing. You may have no connection with this, nor knowledge of it; I do not know. With much of what has been written on this line I am in sympathy. There was sent to me for review a thesis which I think is the epitome of the contention; and I did not criticize its objective, which would be my own, but only its spirit of sharpness and ridicule—and that, 1 think, has been the chief cause of its being rejected by a special committee of the General Conference. He who would advocate a Christian cause should be Christian in his attack. MMM 347.3

If you will permit me, I think I may state my vantage point, slight though it is. All of those who today speak so strongly for Jones and Waggoner, and who unmercifully condemn Uriah Smith, are younger men who had no acquaintance with those men, nor any experience in the events of the 1890’s. For whatever it is worth, my experience covered those years. I was not at the Minneapolis Conference, being then but eleven year old; but within a year afterward I was brought into intimate contact with leaders in the denomination, in which relation I have ever since continued. The doctrine of justification by faith and the interpretation of the law in Galatians, as presented by A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner at the Minneapolis Conference, was then the great topic of discussion. The man for whom I become stenographer in 1891 was Elder R. M. Kilgore, then “Superintendent of District No. 2,” a position equivalent to today’s presidency of the Southern Union Conference, though he was located elsewhere at other times, and he was high in the general councils the church. He was one of those who enthusiastically accepted the truth taught by Elder Jones, and who strongly preached it, being the friend and confidant of Jones. Naturally, I drank in this doctrine and truth. MMM 347.4

I become intimately acquainted with Elder Jones, sometimes travelled with him and wrote for him. I greatly admired him, believed what he taught, advocated it, and I trust lived it. Through the greater part or the 1890’s I was a resident in Battle Creek, and while attending college was stenographer successively for the manager of the Review and Herald, Dr. J. H. Kellogg, and the president and dean of Battle Creek College, besides engaging in Sabbath school and church missionary activities. Naturally, I was kept in touch with church affairs, and with church doctrine. I also had pleasant relations with Elder Uriah Smith, and held him in high esteem. With Dr. Waggoner I had only casual acquaintance. But I was acquainted, through attendance at councils, with all the members of the General Conference Committee, and particularly, I may say, 1 was the protégé of president O. A. Olsen. I was present at the great General Conference of 1901, and by direction of my employer was in at the preliminary meeting of leaders whom Sister White called together in the College library, a council which changed the direction of that Conference and of the church. MMM 348.1

Now doubtless my personal experience colors what I write of that period. It was spiritually a time of struggle and of triumph for me, an experience in which the majority of my youthful companions shared. I testify that there was a powerful influence, the influence of the Spirit of God, present in our society. The protracted revival in Battle Creek College in the fall-winter of 1898 was the most remarkable I have ever known, interrupting classes for weeks, and inspiring a strong spirit of personal consecration and evangelistic fervor, in which we students participated. I know that I and (I must believe) scores of the youth of my acquaintance were intelligently aware of the truth of justification only through the merits of Christ, I have heard from no one since then a clearer and more forceful presentation of this truth than we had then, through such veterans as A. T. Jones and such youthful earnest preachers as Luther Warren. I can not rid myself of the conviction that the youthful researchers and critics of the history of those times, relying solely upon documentary evidence, miss much of truth by not having then been born. History, to be served well, demands experience. MMM 348.2

Now specifically to the points in hand. I believe that my article, which you cite, if you will read it completely and objectively, will convince you that, so far from championing the opposing side at the Minneapolis Conference, I stand foursquare with Sister White, and with Jones and Waggoner and Haskell and Olsen and Kilgore and Covert, and many others who accepted this truth. But I do not take up the cudgels which seem to fit the hands of some young men who apparently are more concerned with defaming honored veterans than in teaching the pure doctrine of Christ. In the thesis to which I referred, Uriah Smith, George I. Butler, and other men tried and true, are practically blacklisted for the history of those times. I do not think God so counts them. Nor would you find A. T. Jones (at least in the days of his loyalty), nor E. J. Waggoner, nor Stephen Haskell, nor Robert Kilgore, traducers of these men. I am not classing you with that company, and I am not supposing that you have any such animus; but it is apparently the inspiration of some writers. MMM 348.3

Again I say that I readily consent to the condemnation and elimination of anything I have written which is contrary to what Sister White has written, or which in the opinion of any reader is so contrary. I do not doubt that the obstructive attitude of such men as. Smith, Van Horn, Littlejohn, and Morrison, blocked and blinded the way of the truth; yet, on the other hand, I know that the light shone through. we have documentory evidence that Van Horn received and accepted Sister White’s rebuke; and Jones himself later testified that “the chief opponent,” evidently meaning Smith, make frank and full confession of his error and fault.” To pillory these men who gave loyal service to the Second Advent and Sabbath cause, is the mark, not of advanced spirituality, of small minds. MMM 348.4

It may be said—it is tacit in the attacks I have seen—that though we of the ‘90’s thought we had justification by faith, we did not really understand the true significance nor the depth of that doctrine and experience. Granted! We do not now and we never shall plumb the depths of the wisdom and love of God. But though I have looked diligently and longingly for a spirit in the critics that would convince me they have a superior knowledge of the love of God, manifested in justification, sanctification, and complete salvation, I have not discovered it. Hard, brittle argument, laced with censure, is what I find. The spirit of Christ, when received into the soul, is not manifest in loud argument and severe condemnation, but in such ministry as was His who came to “bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound,” “to comfort those that mourn,” “to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.” MMM 348.5

We do indeed greatly need today in the church (which means in ourselves) the experience of justification by faith. A great proportion of our people and of their leaders have turned their backs upon the faith delivered to us by the Testimonies, in health, in education, in simplicity of living and sacrifice, and in many other ways. But justification will avail nothing in the end, without sanctification. Justification may come in a moment of surrender; sanctification is the work of a lifetime. Sanctification is the experience of Christ dwelling within, and it will be evidenced by its possessors showing the spirit of Christ in dealing with others, in word, in spirit, in deed, I think that the remedy proposed by some, that we republish the sermons of Jones and Waggoner, reveals a shallowness of concept of the great plan of salvation through justification and sanctification in Christ. They had nothing which the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy do not have, and the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy have not apostatized. Rather, we need a deep and quiet experience of communion with God, a close adherence in life as well as speech to the instruction divinely given us, and an energizing of our powers for service. That, and that only, will correct the way of the church’s experience in 1868, 1928, and wherever else and whenever men have departed from the truth. MMM 349.1

Permit me to say, [name blotted], that I fear you have, in at least one instance, disingenuous in quoting from my article. Yon close a quotation in which I speak of later surrender and harmony, with the opening sentence of the next paragraph: “Why tell these tales of difficulty and dissension and strife, yet of final victory?” There you stop, with the implication that I am deprecating any reference to them; whereas that sentence opens a paragraph (that you do net quote) which tells why we tell them, and properly so. But I credit you with the intention not to be invidious. MMM 349.2

You deprecate the use of the word, “polemics.” If that is offensive or incorrect, it ought to be excised. But often we get concepts of the meaning of a word which are incorrect or partial. Webster defines polemic as meaning: “of the nature of, or pertaining to, or involving an aggressive attack, or the refutation of others’ opinions, doctrines, or the like.” Now anyone who knew A. T. Jones and who listened to him, as I did, for e whole decade, knows that he did very aggressively attack others’ opinions and doctrines; and at the Minneapolis Conference he was guilty at times of disrespect and discourtesy, as when he said, with crisp misrepresentation, “Elder Smith has told you he does not know anything about this matter. I do. And I can not be held responsible for what Elder Smith does not know. I am not attacking Elder Jones. I loved him, and I respect his memory still. I was one of his boys. But I do not have to put him up in a saint’s niche because he once spoke the word of God. However, by no means did I restrict the term, polemic, to him; the opposite side was just as polemic as his side—and especially he. Waggoner was gentler. MMM 349.3

Another word you question is “disputants.” But for that I have no apology to make. The men on the two sides were disputants. “Dispute” is defined as; “to contend in argument; to argue against something maintained by another.” There was controversy at Minneapolis, end those who took part in it were disputants. It is absurd to hold that because Jones and Waggoner preached truth, they never sought to refute what they held to be error; and such refuting was disputation, why fix an opprobrious meaning upon a word and limit it to that, when, if legitimate at all, that meaning is only one facet of the definition? MMM 349.4

I have presented the Minneapolis Conference more fully in my history of Seventh-day Adventist, Volume 1, Captains of the Host, chapter, “The Lord Our Saviour.” pages 583 to 602. I know that this is also attacked by—shall we say?—polemics as having all and more than all and more than all of the faults of my short article in the Review and Herald, but still, rereading it with such detachment as I can master, I think it is a balanced account of the Minneapolis Conference. And as to the after-history, in the 1890’s, while I accept all that Sister White says about the hindrances, I cherish my own religious experience in that time as representative of the experience of my friends in the church, many of whom have since given, and some of whom even in their old age are still giving, great service for God at home and abroad. As an historian, I do not think it my role to take the side of modern critics, and present to our people and to the world a church torn, disappointed, defeated, and now for sixty years under condemnation, when that church, despite all its faults and failures, has since that time carried the last gospel message to nigh all the world. I do not think that is true history. MMM 350.1

That Sister White did not take that attitude is evidenced, as one sample, by her statement in Testimonies, Vol. VII, published in 1902: “Enfeebled and defective, needing constantly to be warned and counseled, the church is nevertheless the object of Christ’s supreme regard. He is making experiments of grace on human hearts, end is effecting such transformations of character that angels are amazed, and express their joy in songs of praise.” Page 16. “The battle-cry is sounding along the line. Let every soldier of the cross push to the front, not in self-sufficiency, but in meekness and lowliness, and with firm faith in God.” Page 17. MMM 350.2

They who detach certain statements from Sister White’s writings, and build upon them a platform of eternal disapprobation, without regard to the large aspects of her office and mission,—the tender ministry, the encouraging counsel, the bright hope of success—are doing neither her nor the church service. I could make a tremendously stronger case from her writings and warnings, contrasted to the lives of some leaders and many of our people, both in the field of healthful living and in that of education. We are more grievously at fault in these areas than in theological doctrines. So says the Laodicean message. But I have no commission to disrupt. If the Lord will show me how to build—and to some degree He is showing me—I will try to do it, and I am trying. MMM 350.3

[Name blotted], you are not to take this lengthy dissertation as a stricture upon your attitude. There is but slight evidence, if any, that you are in sympathy with those who hold the partisan and condemnatory views I have been combating. I am ready to believe that your question was but the natural reaction to the puzzlement you had in the apparent contradiction found in Sister white’s articles and mine. However, you may have been the object of a propaganda emanating from the sources I cite, and I thought it proper to deal with that. MMM 350.4

Again I say, and finally, if in your judgment I contradict Sister White, repudiate me. Whether or not your judgment is correct, and consequently whether or not this gives you the broad view, it will at least be a solution. MMM 350.5

Sincerely, your brother,
(Signed) A. W. Spalding.