1888—Issues, Outcomes, Lessons

Seeds of Conflict

The estrangement between the two sides began when Waggoner published his views on Galatians 3 in The Signs of the Times, September 11, 1884. His explanation that the added law was the moral code flatly contradicted the interpretation accepted by Butler and Smith and probably by most contemporary Adventists 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.” ⁷ 88IOL 2.2

Ellen White apparently settled the earlier controversy by stating that Waggoner’s interpretation was wrong. ⁸ 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 Galatians 3:19 referred to the ceremonial system. They also believed that Ellen White supported this view, since she had rejected J. H. Waggoner’s position. ⁹ 88IOL 2.3

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 incensed. He considered the articles an affront to his leadership. He decided to settle the question once and for all at the 1886 General Conference session. Hurriedly he produced an 85-page pamphlet and distributed it to the delegates gathered at Battle Creek for the General Conference session in November of that year. In this tract Butler stated: “The writer acknowledges considerable surprise 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 preparing 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 argumentative 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 Galatians.... 88IOL 2.4

“We decidedly protest against the bringing out of controverted views in the manner indicated, concerning matters upon which our people are not agreed.” ¹⁰ 88IOL 2.5

At the 1886 General Conference session a theological committee of nine members was appointed to study the point at issue, which they did immediately. Something of the tension developing 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. Waggoner came on ... loaded for the conflict,” he wrote. “The theological committee was ordered.... It stood, four—Haskell, Whitney, Wilcox, and Waggoner, 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 conference and have a big public fight over it or not. I could not advise it, for I thought it would be most unhappy and result only in heat and debate.” ¹¹ 88IOL 2.6

Public confrontation at that meeting was not avoided altogether; one resolution aimed at Waggoner was passed, while another was defeated. The conference 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.” ¹² 88IOL 2.7

However, Butler’s resolution that called for a censure of the Signs for publishing the nine articles on Galatians earlier that year was voted down. Butler lamented: “I think, in justice, it ought to have been passed. But this was very distasteful to Brother Haskell and some others, that even a word should be said implying that the Signs had made a mistake.” ¹³ 88IOL 3.1