E.Ballenger, W.W Fletcher, L.R. Conradi, W.W. Prescott

E. BALLENGER

Edward Ballenger was even more vocal than his brother. At first an opponent of Albion, he became his most staunch defender among the administrators, pastors, and laity who espoused the heretical cause. It is chiefly Edward Ballenger’s name that is remembered with the Gathering Call publications which were a denominational gadfly for decades. An acquaintance of Ellen G. White s, Edward Ballenger headed up the work of education for the church in California until his defection. After that event he issued a spate of materials until the beginning of the fifties.

W. W. FLETCHER

When we move to the late 1920 s, we have a case even more poignant than Albion Ballenger s. The latter has never been successfully accused of unchristian behavior, and the situation is identical with the former. Daniells seemed close to tears when he wrote of this man whom he described as “a gentleman, a very devout, praying man. I have greatly enjoyed working with him.” Everyone believes in Brother Fletcher.” (23)

Even today, those who are vocal opponents of Fletcher’s theology speak with almost reverence of the man. Letters from Elder L. Jones to Drs. Olson and Ford so testify. (L. L. Jones is a retired minister in Victoria, Australia.)

Fletcher spanned the years between 1879 and 1947. After colporteuring, he became a public evangelist, and then entered foreign mission work. Returning from Singapore, he held city missions and then became the president of the South Australian Conference. He was Young People s, Home Missions, and Education secretary for the Australian Union Conference in 1914, and vice president of the union in 1915. During the following three years he was the president of the India Union Mission. Next he became field secretary, and then chairman of the Southern Asian Division, 1920.22. He returned to evangelism in Australia, then pursued further work as an administrative officer of the union prior to joining the faculty at Avondale College to teach Bible. We have never never found a word breathing suspicion on his

46

integrity and fidelity to the church over these twenty-five years of service.

Fletcher’s theological stance should not be equated with Ballenger s. He never accepted the “way-out” features of the Ballenger position, but its emphasis on Heb. 6:19-20 and Heb. 9 was appropriated by him with a sad fervor. He did not wish to believe it, but found himself compelled to do so, even as L. R. Conradi, W. W. Prescott, L. E. Froom, R. A. Anderson, E. Heppenstall, R. Cottrell, D. Neufeld, E. Hilgert, and a host of others in later years. (Certainly, the majority of our New Testament scholars assent to the essential accuracy of Ballenger’s exegesis of “within the veil.” Several studies by students of Andrews University in the last few years, including essays by denominational college Bible teachers, take the same position.)

Fletcher’s apologia sua vita is Reasons for My Faith. There he sets forth his fundamental positions, the answers of the brethren, and his answers to their answers. We quote the first:

The Propositions

1. That it was the immediate unveiled presence of God as manifested in the Holy Shekinah that constituted the inner apartment of the earthly sanctuary the most holy place, and that consequently when at the time of His ascension the Lord Jesus Christ sat down at the right hand of God, thus “appearing in the presence of God for us,” He entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. There can be no place in heaven more holy than the place of the unveiled presence of Almighty God.

2. That in the typical service of the earthly sanctuary the sprinkling of blood upon the altar and before the veil represented the expiation of sin, and not its transfer into the sanctuary.

3. That it is necessary to modify our view that the Testimonies are to be regarded as having the authority of a direct revelation from God. (24)

Scores, including ministers, were disfellowshipped from the Australian churches over the sanctuary issues in Fletcher’s time. Entire groups left the church and fellowshipped together away from its borders.

Some paragraphs from Fletcher’s Open Letter of Nov. 20,1930, may be of interest:

The truths of the Advent message are very dear to me. The knowledge of these truths stirred my heart in my youth, and the belief of them has molded my life ever since. I thank God for the day when one of the Lord’s messengers came to our home town in Northwest Tasmania preaching these things.

Thirty years have gone by since then. During all this time the great essential truths of the Advent message have been a constant inspiration and comfort to me. In tendering to the brethren my resignation as a worker employed by the Australasian Union Conference, I have done so with much regret, having feelings of the warmest affection for the Advent cause and people.

After all these discussions my convictions remain practically unchanged. I do not myself regard the divergence as sufficient to warrant the separation of a worker from the Advent ministry; but my conversations with the brethren here and in America have shown that many of our responsible men are not prepared to take that view.

While my change of conviction with regard to the sanctuary teaching will cause pain and perplexity to some of my dearest friends, I see a reformation of doctrine in that connection to be essential for the good of the

47

church. Although the first recognition of this may cause perplexity, a fuller and truer knowledge of the nature of the Saviour’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, and the relation of that ministry to the work accomplished on Calvary’s cross, cannot but bring great joy and peace to all who truly believe.

I have felt it to be my duty to bring my convictions before my fellow-ministers, and still feel that it is our workers particularly that should give thought to these things. There are matters of interpretation of type and prophecy that are not essential to salvation. This does not mean, however, that they are unimportant. While these things should not be made a test of fellowship, we have rightly attached great importance to them.

I feel bound to the people among whom I have learned the ways of the Lord by ties of love that can never be broken. I would exhort one and all, both young and old, not to be unduly disturbed over some divergence of viewpoint in prophetic interpretation. Whatever may be the interpretation of particular passages, undoubtedly the second advent of Christ is near, even at the doors. We have not followed cunningly devised fables in making known the power and coming of the Lord. We must remember, however, that while the lamp of prophecy will shine more and more brightly until the day dawn, we are to look to Christ, and depend more upon Him than upon our own understanding of the times and the seasons. It is still true that the Father keeps these things more or less “within His own authority.” Let us keep our eyes fixed upon “Him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by His blood.” “To Him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”

L. R. CONRADI

L. R. Conradi lived between 1856 and 1936. After studying for the Roman Catholic priesthood, he migrated to America at the age of seventeen and was there led to this message in 1878. In one-third of the normal four years he completed the ministerial course at Battle Creek, though working at typesetting over the same period. James White, noticing his poverty, bought for him a graduation coat. In 1882 he was ordained, and 1888 found him at the historic Minneapolis Conference. Not long afterwards he was back in his native Germany as a very active church leader, and according to the GC president, much appreciated.

Now Brother Conradi is not a speculative man at all, in his temperament. He is a well grounded man. He is a scholar, and a man of very keen foresight, of much insight; and he is building up a work in Europe that is simply marvelous; and he is building it on the old solid foundation of this cause. He is not wandering about.(25)

L. R. Conradi’s problems began very early. At the time of his defection he had labored for the cause over half a century, having been a student of Uriah Smith’s. Conradi was well read, eloquent by tongue and pen, and had captured the hearts of a large number of our people throughout Europe. But his sanctuary problems came to the fore in the last decade of the nineteenth century, though he never separated from our people till the 1930s when he was seventy-six years of age.

Particularly the relationship between the question and answer to Dan. 8:13-14 worried our German leader. After all, verse 14 was an answer to a specific question, and that question said much about the sins of antichrist, but nothing about the sins of true believers, and apparently nothing about the Day of Atonement. From Conradi we obtained, through this mental tumult, our present denominational teaching on

48

the “daily” which spread from him to A. T. Jones, A. G. Daniells, W. C. White, W. W. Prescott and other leaders. Conradi revived the teaching of the reformers that Dan. 8:13 pointed to the papal counterfeits of Christ’s gospel and mediatorial work. (Before going in print as the first SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST writer to set forth the “new” view of the “daily,” Conradi wrote Ellen G. White inquiring whether she had any light on that topic. He received no answer. Ellen G. White usually refused to settle doctrinal issues.)

Therefore, deduced Conradi, in company with the reformers, 8:14 pointed to a restoration of the long obscured gospel. (He also believe in another aspect of fulfillment to do with Mohammedanism’s attacks on Christians. This he picked up from scholars of other faiths who preceded him, or were contemporary with him, such as H. G. Guinness.)

Conradi also came to believe with Ballenger that Christ at His ascension fulfilled the ministry symbolized by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement he went “within the veil.” Not until June 12,1931, however, did Conradi publicly set forth his views. After he was rebuked for a statement on Dan. 7 in the journal he edited (Herold der Wahrheit) he wrote Elder H. F. Schuberth, chairman of the division committee and requested a hearing.

The discussion appointed for July 19,1931, was duly held in good spirit on both sides, and a sub-committee appointed to prepare a report for the Division Committee. This report was considered and adopted July 22, 1931. In this report appears the following summary of the discussion:

“Brother Conradi made these two questions prominent for discussion:

a) the sanctuary question,

b) the question of the Spirit of Prophecy.

The discussion took place in the following manner. Brother Conradi was granted an opportunity to present his ideas to the full committee in a series of three Bible studies. Brother F. C. Gilbert replied to his presentation in two Bible studies which were later supplemented by Brethren C. C. Crisler, G. W. Schubert, and W. Muller. These presentations took place alternatively.

At Brother Conradi’s request the discussion was broken off, as he desired time in which to study further that he might become clear. He then made the accompanying statement on Wednesday, July 22.

“In answer to this presentation of Bro. Conradi we declare definitely that we hold unconditionally to the Holy Scriptures and their teachings as the only authority in questions of faith (and doctrine). For this reason we hold to the teachings of the sanctuary in all their details as heretofore. Furthermore, we continue to appreciate spiritual gifts, among which is the Spirit of Prophecy, as taught in Holy Scriptures.” (26)

Three months later Conradi was heard in Omaha, Nebraska, by a committee of twenty-seven appointed by the General Conference, including all the officers at Washington, and four division presidents from abroad. After the hearing, Brother Conradi wrote C. H. Watson, assuring him that by accepting his resignation as field secretary of the General Conference the brethren would do him a favor. This was done.

49

The official Statement of the Conrad I Case offers asa typical reaction the following:

A lay business man in one church who entertained Brother Conradi, and who had received some of his documents, says: “When I asked him [Conradi] concerning his position regarding the sanctuary and Sister White he gave me his opinion on these two points.”

“Quite a number of brethren and sisters share the view of Brother Conradi, but one needs time to read it all.” (Letter from H. Fenner to E. Kotz, May 4,1932.)

Later the same brother wrote:

“Since there seems to be a preparation for a fight against Brother Conradi, I consider it my duty to warn you against participating in it. … Anyone who wants to fight against Brother Conradi must be well able to prove that his views are wrong (although he does not want to persuade anyone to share these views with him) else the people would be against those who oppose Brother Conradi. This I believe Is not only my own private judgment, but it is the view of about ninety percent of the brethren and sisters.” (Quoted In a letter from H. Fenner to E. Kotz, May 4,1932.)

Still later he wrote:

“A man like L. R. Conradi lives in the hearts of all. However, if his views are wrong, yet I would see my way clear to bear with this old pioneer. I agree with you and so do the churches in Bremen. Let us wait and see. If it is from God, ye cannot overthrow it, but if it be of men it will come to naught.” (Quoted in letter from H. Fenner to E. Kotz, May 4, 1932.) (27)

A different reaction also is recorded from a former field secretary:

“Now we have been greatly distressed. Brother Conradi has not only belittled the gift of prophecy, but has also repudiated all his own books that he has written. All the work that he has done during 55 years is now declared untrue. He says he avoids pork only on account of health principles. The threefold message has been proclaimed during the Reformation. The deadly wound in Rev. 13:3, the beast with the two horns of Rev. 13:11 all these things have already found their fulfillment in the fifth century.

“As to the effects of these presentations of Brother Conradi in the church, we shall have to wait and see. Personally, I did not receive a good impression. I would not have believed that Brother Conradi was thinking along that line.” (Letter from Aug. Kollosser to H. Fenner, May 16, 1932) (28)

We quote the last lines of the same Statement:

The following cablegram was received at the General Conference headquarters from the Central European Division office in Berlin, under date of August 13:

“Division recommends withdraw Conradi’s credentials.” (29)

On August 14, another cablegram came from the same division office, as follows: “Conradi arriving New York August 19 boat (Deutschland).” (30)

50

W. W. PRESCOTT

Present at the trials of Ballenger and Conradi was our veteran educator and administrator, W. W. Prescott (1844-1944). He was president of Union, Walla Walla, and Avondale, and head of the theology department of EMC. He served as field secretary of the GC, and editor of the Review (for seven years). He was the author of The Spade and the Bible, published by Revell. Hundreds of preachers and officers of the denomination received their Bible training from Prescott. The Doctrine of Christ, written by him in the twenties, summarizes his doctrinal presentations in the classroom.

In the Officer’s Minutes of March 2,1934, we find allusion to the need to save the denomination from “drifting into theories like Ballenger s.” In the Review of 1909 (Oct. 28 ff.) Prescott had replied to the heresies of Ballenger.

The Officer’s Minutes of Jan. 22, 1934, record that:

W. W. Prescott, who is teaching Bible at Emmanuel Missionary College had certain questions concerning our theology. When these had been considered by a small group it had been agreed that W. W. Prescott continue at EMC for the rest of this school year, and that he not teach in the classroom any of these matters upon which he differs with the denomination. It had also been agreed that at the end of the school year he would not be continued longer at EMC. A letter had been received by W. H. Branson from K. H. Holden asking that the General Conference call W. W. Prescott back to Washington to relieve them of the necessity of asking him to discontinue work. Considerable time was spent discussing just what would be the best procedure to follow in dealing with Elder Prescott. It was finally

Voted, That I. H. Evans and W. H. Branson draw up a statement to W. W. Prescott explaining to him that on the basis of conversations which have been had with him by members of the official staff, that we understand he is not in full harmony with the denominational beliefs, and that we believe that he cannot go on teaching in a Bible Department while his views are not in harmony with the denomination, and suggest to him that he cooperate with the Officers and with the Emmanuel Missionary College Board by withdrawing at the end of the school year; that we further suggest to him in the statement that if he wishes, he may have a hearing on his religious views with the Officers of the General Conference. (31)

February 2,1934, W. W. Prescott wrote to Elders Branson and Evans. We quote the first two paragraphs.

Dear Brethren:

In your letter of Jan. 29, received yesterday, you advise me to withdraw voluntarily from my place as a worker in this movement on the ground that I am “somewhat out of harmony with the established faith of the denomination on certain vital points, especially the doctrine of the sanctuary.” You do this without having had any conference with me over the serious question involved, and without expressing any regret that I have taken such a course as to forfeit your confidence in me as a proper representative of this work after having devoted about fifty years of my life to its advancement. Not only so, but you plainly imply that if I do not thus withdraw, the matter will be taken up with the Board of Trustees of this college with the purpose, of course, of preventing me

51

from being invited by them to continue my work here.

Now it Is an axiom in any court of justice that an accused person should have the opportunity of facing his accusers in court and be given a fair chance of disproving the charges against him, but it seems as if you had already decided the case against me, and were now advising me to avoid a public condemnation by quietly accepting your decision. It is true that you offer me the opportunity of coming to Washington to confer with you, but are the accusers the proper jury to consider the case? Is it not a fair procedure that the charge which you make against me should be considered by those who have not made the charge? It seems that way to me. (32)

In the archives is an interesting note in the handwriting of A. W. Spicer. Note that the first sentence is giving the words of Prescott, but the rest the words of Spicer.

1. “I have waited all these years for someone to make an adequate answer to Ballenger, Fletcher and others on their positions re. the sanctuary but I have not yet seen or heard it.”

2. After a long discussion of the sanctuary, the Trinity and other questions you ask whether I felt you should resign seeing you were out of harmony with the church.

I replied that I was not competent to give advice but was sure that if you taught the things in your classes which you had talked to me the brethren would ask you to resign.

You assured me you were not teaching them but talked of them confidentially only to leading men. (33)

From the Heritage Room of Andrews University (File VFM 998) comes the following letter:

Another interesting item came to me from three different sources, viz: that Prof. W. W. Prescott has made it known that he no longer believes in-the investigative judgment. I wrote asking him what event marked the fulfillment of the 2300 days, if the investigative judgment did not begin at that time. It has been something like two months since I wrote him. As yet I have received no reply, and am confident he will not answer. So long as he is determined to maintain the denomination, his only safe course is to ignore my question. (34)

W. W. Prescott moved to Washington and served the church there. At his death ten years later, he was greatly honored both by the church and many beyond its borders.