Yet, just such pride unwittingly controlled Butler and Smith in their opposition, even after Waggoner and Jones had humbled themselves upon receiving testimony reproof and ceased public agitation. Waggoner humbly confessed that actions he had thought were prompted only by commitment to Gods will were actually prompted by pride. But the same pride, which had earlier prompted testimony reproof to Butler for exercising kingly power, he and Smith now exercised in their assumed duty to silence the younger men. Yet, they too thought they were only doing the Lord’s will even as they resisted the Holy Spirit Whose message they identified as heresy that was sure to destroy the pillars of faith!

In the previous section we found that resisting light produces darkness that makes one susceptible to heresy that parades as new light. We then examined five heresies that came in rapid, overlapping succession as a result of resistance to the Holy Spirit. We here consider the role, following 1888, of kingly power, the natural outgrowth of unrecognized pride. Indeed, such exercise of undue authority, which called forth intense testimony reproofs, was a significant factor in precipitating the heresies.

The Nature and Universality of Kingly Power
But let us first consider the nature and universality of kingly power. The “kings” Ellen White reproved thought they were doing God’s will but did not know themselves or the limits of their responsibility. Kingly power is rooted not in an office, such as that of president, but in the heart of every man and woman however lowly the office. That root, instinctive selfishness with pride as its solar plexus, threatens every home, as well as every local church and conference; for it lies in the heart of every human, making us see our opinions as right, thus others to be wrong. Indeed, one may be so sure of his opinion as to see any other view as opposed to truth. Thus, whether at home or church or conference office, it is instinctive to impose one’s own view as the test of what is right.

Kingly power reflects an urgent need to feel secure in our role (whatever it is) and to succeed in our responsibility, whether in the home or in the Lord’s work. In evil men or women this may become so pathological as even to try to destroy those who seem to threaten their goals. But I refer here to well intentioned people who seek to do God’s work, but who do not know and follow principles that permit the Spirit to bear responsibility for success. They fail to honor the Spirit’s purpose to direct the body of Christ by impressing various minds to think together.

Kingly power’s only cure is to cooperate with the Holy Spirit Who seeks to use corporate decision making to train us and to remove our pride. His purpose is to guide by impressing the various members to contribute to a harmony that will result in sound decisions. The leader’s key responsibility is to foster this team function. Failure in this vital function results in kingly power, either in the leader or in one or more members who seek to fulfill his function. Thus the success of both leader and members depends on each listening to others and encouraging all to participate as they seek unity of understanding and forge methods of working together.

The Holy Spirit not only appoints to each an assigned work, but calls all to develop relationships that will perfect characters marred by selfishness. This requires retraining and cleansing by a sanctifying process of learning to submit ourselves one to another.

No matter what the office and its responsibilities, each must learn to relate humbly to all others and to realize that success depends on the Holy Spirit Who works through and guides the whole body corporately, not only key leaders individually. Thus, the success of any officer is as dependent on those he presides over as they are on him. And their corporate ability to relate properly and to function in unity depends on humble, mutual dependence upon the Holy Spirit. He alone represents Christ, the Head, who chooses to guide through a union of minds, not through the mind of one man or a small group of men who seek to enforce their judgment.

Kingly Power: Failure to Exercise Priesthood Principles
Kingly power thus both reveals a failure of priesthood of believer principles and prevents the exercise of those inter-dependent principles. God gave us a representative form of government to prevent control by one person or small group. Thus a president is to preside over and coordinate a given work, not to control it. Failing to recognize his proper function, he may do one of two things: he may control those around him, seeking to enforce what he thinks must be done; or he may allow others to control him in their attempt to “succeed” in what they think must be done. Either way, he ceases to be a president (presider over decision makers) and either becomes a “king,” seeking to enforce his views and decisions on the body or leaves them leaderless, thus virtually inviting others to develop kingly power by assuming his responsibility.

Either thwarts the purpose of “a God of organization and order” Who has always called men to lead and gives them leadership gifts. But when those men fail to understand the nature and limits of their responsibility, church government ceases to function representatively and a king and his lieutenants control a process that is intended to unite us in dependence on the Holy Spirit. Too often this breakdown of organization is blamed on organization itself or on the office abused, with little attention to the real cause, which lies at the door not merely of the “king” but also of both his “lieutenants” and his “subjects.”

The solution to kingly power is three-fold: (a) all need to humbly “submit … one to another” (Eph 5:21), with each honoring and encouraging all others in their appointed roles; (b) thus each must clearly understand his own responsibilities and be familiar with those of fellow workers; (c) he must not only faithfully fulfill his own responsibilities, but carefully protect the authority of others to fulfill their duties.

For every responsibility, however small, requires freedom and authority to fulfill it without interference by others. Essential to that authority is its representative function, with its appointee an honored team member whose voice joins with others in decision making.

While every team member must be committed to the success of all; it is the presider’s special office to make this happen. Thus his success depends not on his ability to get others to act upon his judgment, but on facilitating the efforts of all team mates as they together honor the Holy Spirit’s purpose to work through the unity of all. God’s blessing depends on the degree to which each humbles himself in an inter-dependent process and all rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance.

Meanwhile, kingly power often begins when one fails to fulfill his responsibility and others try to take up the slack. Over time these may habitually function outside the boundaries of their own responsibility and corresponding authority. Whatever the office, as the developing “king” gathers to himself authority not connected with his responsibilities, he interferes with appointees to those responsibilities. Thus king makers are often those who allow others to bear their burdens, unwittingly transferring to them not only their responsibility but also its authority. The result is to intensify the kingship of the one trying to faithfully assure the success of the whole.

So, the king may not be a presider but any who begins to assume responsibility and to exercise authority beyond that for which he is appointed. Indeed, the president, in failing to fulfill his office, may become captive to an emerging king (or kings). It was this that prompted Ellen White’s many kingship testimonies to O. A. Olsen, General Conference President from 1888 until 1896.

She repeatedly urged Olsen to break the control over him of Harmon Lindsay, General Conference treasurer, and A. R. Henry, treasurer of the Review. A godly man, Olsen greatly appreciated counsel and did not fail to share her reproofs with those involved; but he failed to exercise the authority of his office, thus breaking free from the control of and correcting men who increasingly acted as dictators to those under them. To him she wrote on May 25, 1896:

“My mind has been so wrought upon by the Spirit of God that the burden upon me was very great in regard to yourself and the work in Battle Creek. I felt that you were being bound hand and foot, and were tamely submitting to it.” (Letter 87a, 1896)

A couple of months later in Ellen White wrote to her son, Edson: “I dare not think my own thoughts, for indignation comes upon me when I think how men in Battle Creek have supposed they could take the place of God and order and dictate and lord it over men’s minds and talents” (Letter 152, 1896). Nor was her concern limited to treasurers; it doubtless especially included managers of the Review and sanitarium.

Throughout the 1890s Ellen White repeatedly protested kingly control by one man or a small group who shared “kingly power”; for the power of a primary king nearly comes from supporting kings who help control others. Her reproofs sometimes did involve conference presidents; but, as we have seen, the king was generally not, as Jones implied, a General Conference President. Instead he was repeatedly urged to use his office to curb the kingly power of others.

The greatest challenge at the time was from the supreme “king” of the medical work and his lieutenants. J. H. Kellogg was no doubt especially in mind at the 1901 General Conference session as Ellen White declared: “God has not put any kingly power in our ranks to control this or that branch of the work. The work has been greatly restricted by the efforts to control it in every line.”

Universality of Kingly Power Problems
Though intensified by inadequate organization, the kingly power Ellen White said restricted “every line” of work is rooted in human nature and tests every leader. Except for John Byington, our first president, who bore minimal responsibility in his one term during which he operated from his farm, every president during Ellen White’s life-time, from her husband James to Arthur G. Daniells, was reproved for wrong use of authority, Olsen for allowing his associates to exercise kingly power. This testifies to the universality of the problem and the difficulty of any man to fully assume the authority of his own office without overriding the authority of other offices.

No leader can find that balance without trial and error. Thus when we see what we think is kingly power developing, we need to be compassionate, not critical. Dangerous as this is, it would be just as dangerous for him, in trying not to be a “king,” to become a “subject.” For if he fails to exercise his own authority of office, someone else will.

Butler, who with Smith so bitterly opposed Waggoner and Jones, was repeatedly reproved. But the one called upon to reprove honored him as a true man of God. Yet, for years she almost despaired of him and Smith because of their attitudes in opposing Waggoner and Jones. It is easy to recognize kingly power in those who cross ones own path, but, oh so hard to see it in oneself. Thank God for His reproof and His patience.

Ellen White’s 1901 concern was not only for formal reorganization, but for the real issue of kingly power, hearts that are naturally selfish and require continual renewal in a humbling of one to another. To representatively distribute decision making, she called for a committee representing “all lines of our work,” including mission boards, publishing houses, educational institutions, and sanitariums. Meanwhile each institution was to be managed representatively.

J. H. Kellogg, Super King
Except for the medical work, this integration was quite well accomplished. But Kellogg intransigently exposed his kingly reign, declaring he would never permit the medical work to become part of that unity of “all lines of … work.” Thus for some time the medical remained not only independent, but free from representative government, controlled by one man operating through lieutenants “faithful” to himself rather than to the church and its divine Head.

Because successful organizational renewal was not matched by spiritual renewal, kingly reproofs continued. These involved urgent testimonies to and regarding men trying to manipulate wages and/or to consolidate control of all publishing work. But the greatest challenge was Adventism’s most powerful “king.” John Harvey Kellogg not only desperately fought to control all medical work, but even tried to control the General Conference, which previous presidents had to a large degree permitted.

In 1902 and at the 1903 session Kellogg and Jones tried in vain to remove Daniells from leadership because he resisted Kellogg’s power moves. In October, 1903 Ellen White held Kellogg’s failure to do “thorough work” at the 1901 session responsible for “the terrible experience” they then were enduring. Yet, Daniells himself later also faced kingly power reproof. It is impossible for any human, without special on the job training of the Holy Spirit, to learn how to exercise authority of office without assuming authority beyond that office. And when the Spirit’s warning voice is not heard and responded to by an administrator, He may have to use circumstances and/or other voices to get our attention.

Inadequate organization had contributed to kingly power by placing far too much responsibility and thus authority on too few men. To correct this was a key reorganizational objective. But reorganization itself could not cure a problem that is not primarily one of office, but of the failure of leaders to humble themselves before God and fellow workers—which is seldom even recognized. And this poses to all of us a life-long challenge of daily sanctification. Thus we dare not judge others who seem to fail in this line lest we judge ourselves.

A. T. Jones Opposes All Kings but King Self
Meanwhile, even before 1888 Jones recognized the tendency of leaders to become “kings” and had developed his own concept of organization as a key to this problem, so evident in others, but that he never did understand because he did not recognize kingship in himself.

Just when Jones developed his organization theory is not clear. George Knight suggests this may have begun while he and William Raymond served together as the only pastors in the Upper Columbia Conference. At any rate, their theories were parallel. Raymond, who was very critical of General Conference leadership, had a theory of organization based on personal independence, claiming a conference had no right to discipline a minister.

In an 1885 testimony Ellen White calls Raymond (Brother D; 5T 289) “an accuser of the brethren” and declares, “He has not conformed to the Bible rule and conferred with the leading brethren, and yet he finds fault with them all. Then identifying this with pride, she declared, “The enemy has come in through his estimation of himself.” On page 290 she continues: “Brother D’s [underhanded] manner of working also makes his course more deserving of censure and a greater offense to God.”

Which was dominant will likely never be known; but mutual influence seems likely, for Jones held radical independence as the only basis for religious liberty. And this was his measure of church government. Meanwhile, Jones and Waggoner no doubt considered organizational issues as they chafed under Butler’s exercise of kingly power, unleashed by their independence in violating the representative principles of counseling together.

It should be noted that, as General Conference President Butler did have some responsibility in relation to this breach of authority in their acting without counsel. But that authority did not extend beyond his office. As presider it was his responsibility to see that these principles were observed; but his first duty was to model those principles he sought to maintain. Thus he was without excuse for using Waggoner’s very confession as a club to threaten him to renounce the message divinely placed upon him. Nor did he offer to sit with them to study the issue.

The timing is of interest, meantime; for Jones became Associate Signs of the Times editor within months of the Raymond testimony, shortly before they became co-editors. Nor was this long before their conflict with Butler began. It is not ours to blame the men; but the Lord no doubt intended that principles involved in the Raymond reproof should be internalized by all four men. How different would be our history had both sets of men approached the issue with the exercise of priesthood of believer principles.

Three-fold Problem of Jones’ Radical Independence Theory
Again, Jones had sufficiently matured his organization theory to be slated to lecture on it at the 1888 session. The debate over the law in Galatians prevented this; but he did give his lecture at the Kansas camp meeting only months later, which became a key topic for both Jones and Waggoner thereafter.

Jones’ view contained many vital insights. But three problems within it would cause him to leave the church and fight it as a Papal institution a decade and a half later. First, he did not recognize the real cause of kingly within himself (and other selves). Instead of recognizing its internal cause he focused on its external expression, identifying it with the office of president, which he equated with kingship, declaring there should be none.

Second, his theory of independence would destroy organization. Indeed, he ultimately identified organization as Babylon and concluded that our office of president proved the Adventist church was Papal and Babylon -- concept common in our initial beginnings, which greatly delayed James and Ellen White’s efforts to get the believers to organize. As early as 1894 he and Waggoner were expressing their organization views in a way to prompt Ellen White to say:

“Elder Waggoner … has agitated strange theories. He has brought before the people, ideas in regard to organization that ought never to have been expressed. I supposed that the question of organization was settled forever….

“… Let not you nor Elder Waggoner … advance things that are not proper, and not in accordance with the very message God has given” (EGW to ATJ, Jan 14, 1894).

Jones third problem was confusion regarding the Holy Spirit (see 4th heresy paper). Whether or not he was aware of the Brethren movement in the British Isles, his theory was a virtual copy of it. The concept was that the Holy Spirit is the only leader and organizer of the true church and that as soon as believers begin to organize they become a part of Babylon, which they too identified as human organization.

If the Holy Spirit leads each individual, they held, there is no need of human organization or leaders. Moreover, human organization always usurps the function of the Holy Spirit. Each must be absolutely independent to freely follow the Holy Spirit. Any effort to organize breaks that freedom and leads to bondage under human Popes. This theory is an understandable reaction to the churches which refused to allow members to accept the Adventist message. But it reflects a wrong diagnosis. Kingship is not removed or controlled by removing an office or by disorganizing, but by humble surrender to God and to one another. Unless this happens every home, church, and conference is likely to be ruled over by a king or kings in constant conflict as each seeks to consolidate his power. Ever church office, however, lowly may be held by a king whose authority depends upon willingness of others to be subjects.

To fully depend on the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential and its important cannot be overdrawn, unless it involves false concepts of his role. But full dependence upon the Holy Spirit requires inter-dependence of the members of Christ’s body.

As Jones insisted, the Holy Spirit is indeed to direct each individual and He alone can produce unity in the body. But nowhere does Scripture suggest that He works independently of human organization.

Confusion Re: Holy Spirit and His Gifts of Organization and Leadership
Jones failed to recognize that organization and leadership are gifts of the Spirit because of confusion over the nature of the Spirit and His role in developing character through the exercise of His gifts. Though a student of Paul’s doctrine of justification, he failed to link this to his doctrine of spiritual gifts. Consequent confusion stymied Jones’ own spiritual growth, which called for pride-conquering interdependence with the brethren, and ultimately led him into apostasy.

So important was unity of the body by harmonious exercise of spiritual gifts that Paul deals with it extensively three times. Instead of personal independence under the Spirit, he emphasizes unity in the Spirit by corporate exercise of His gifts, including administration and leadership. Character development depends on honoring one another and submitting one to another.

Thus, instead of individual independence, the Holy Spirit gives His gifts, including administration, to unite us corporately as one body, as each submits himself to all and serves all others (Eph 5:21). Those gifts include rulership—but not kingship. For the ruler, who Paul says should exercise that gift with diligence” (Rom 12:8), must himself also be subject to the body and its many other gifts.

Nor is the admonition to “rule with diligence” a singular reference. Paul admonishes, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor” (2 Tim 5:17). He says, moreover: “Remember them that have the rule over you … Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.” And finally, “salute all them that have rule over you” (Heb 13:7, 17, 24). Thus Paul uses the fine organization of the human body to affirm church organization and leadership,” which includes “presidents” (presiders) such as James, during the Apostolic era.

It was thus confusion regarding the nature of the Spirit and His role in operating through His gifts that led Jones into the fourth of the five heresies and also to influence the Holy Flesh fanaticism. As we have seen, he attributed to the Holy Spirit the very functions the Spirit gives by which exercise He seeks to purify us of pride and selfishness and to unite us in Christ.

Especially from 1897 onward Jones focused on Ellen White’s 1896 declaration: “It is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference.” After giving two other invalid interpretations to this statement, Jones soon settled for what he held the rest of his life, that we were instructed to abolish the office of president. Strangely, he never did honor the real meaning of her statement, which was to distribute this responsibility among several men. Nor did she leave any doubt of her meaning. For she ends that very paragraph by declaring that the president should be able to choose associates who are to share his administration with him.