A.T. Jones: THE MAN AND THE MESSAGE

The Charge of Jones's Fanaticism from the Beginning

In her day, Ellen White said she had "deep sorrow of heart because I have seen how readily a word or action of Elder Jones … is criticized" (Letter 19, 1892 [1026]). Knight pours upon him multiplied aspersions and imputations of bad motives or heresies. Words or actions that could reasonably be interpreted as innocent are cast in the worst light possible. Yet Jones is the only Seventh-day Adventist minister in history who shared with his colleague what Ellen White said were "heavenly credentials" (Review and Herald, March 18, 1890; Ms. 9, 1890 [543]). What prompts this unusual vilification? Neither Canright nor Conradi has been so severely maligned.

For example, because it had been the young, uneducated Jones's hap to work as a beginning minister with W. L. Raymond in the Northwest, Knight says he imbibed Raymond's errors, or, worse still, actually led him astray (pp. 20, 21, 180). But Raymond's root problem was one that Jones never in the least exhibited in his lifetime—Raymond had "new light on Revelation" that denied the third angel's message; and the reason he opposed the leading brethren was because they rejected that obvious heresy (cf. Letters 19, 20, 1884; Testimonies Vol. 5, pp. 289-297). There is no trace of a theological or spiritual link between the two.

Again, because Ellen White endorsed Jones and the 1888 message, he is said to have been "proud of that endorsement" and arrogantly "mentioned it publicly … to bolster his authority," this as early as 1893 (p. 226). But a study of Jones's entire 1893 sermon Knight cites as the incriminating evidence reveals as humble a spirit as it seems possible for any fallen human being to exhibit under the circumstances. Consider this, for example:

Brethren, the time has come to take up to-night what we there rejected. Not a soul of us has ever been able to dream yet the wonderful blessing that God had for us at Minneapolis, and which we would have been enjoying these four years, if hearts had been ready to receive the message which God sent. … Each one for himself—we are not to begin to examine one another. … Brethren, I do not say these things to find fault, or to condemn; but I say them in the fear of God, that each one of us may know where we stand. And if there be any of those roots from Minneapolis lingering these four years, … let us see that we here and now root up the whole thing, and prostrate ourselves at the feet of Christ (cf. General Conference Bulletin, 1893, pp. 178-185).

Knight further ridicules Jones that he was "absolutely certain that he was always right," exhibiting "arrogant tendencies" (pp. 159, 160). His voluminous 1893 and 1895 sermons reveal the opposite: a kind, humble, contrite spirit. Nothing there sustains Knight's charge of his "abrasive and cocksure personality" (p. 63). What Knight says was "abrasive" Ellen White says was only "plain" talk: "Brother Jones talked very plainly, yet tenderly" (Letter W84, 1890 [642]). See APPENDIX B for evidence from Jones's contemporaries.

True, he was aggressive in his calls for repentance and reformation, but even after 1893 Ellen White said he was a "faithful watchman." She wrote her most enthusiastic endorsements in 1894, commending his forcefulness. "Brother Jones … is ardent in his faith." She added for good measure that "truth is always aggressive" (Letter H27, 1894 [1247]).

Knight undercuts his own judgment of Jones as cherishing a "long war" with Uriah Smith by noting that when he became Review editor, "surprisingly enough, … they seemed to work well together." Perhaps this shows that he was not as unbrotherly to work with as Knight represents him to be. His use of "surprisingly" suggests a prejudiced judgment.

One would naturally expect that Jones's "abrasive … personality" would annoy opposing U. S. Senators and Congressmen who had no obligation to exercise a supposedly difficult brotherly love as our own church leaders had. But note Senator H. W. Blair's reminiscence of Jones as "a man whom I shall always remember with respect on account of his great ability and the evident sincerity with which he presented his views to the committee" (p. 76).

Not all his contemporaries saw Jones in the unfavorable light of his unbelieving opponents. J. S. Washburn, a nephew of G. I. Butler, attended the Minneapolis Conference. He recalls his personality thus:

I introduced myself to Jones [in 1889, on the way to Ottawa, Kansas] somewhat fearfully but found him very friendly and kind. I learned to like him, went with him to meeting, spent a weekend with him, walked up and down the river with him, talking a great deal. … I … recognized that what Jones was preaching was truth (Interview at Hagerstown, Maryland, June 4, 1950).

Of course, this was the early-era Jones; but Knight's thesis is that this "abrasive" personality and self-seeking character were his problem all the way through his career from beginning to end. Even his first humble remark as he was baptized at Walla Walla suffers Knight's imputation of fanaticism (p. 15). Has Knight found a Christian whose unusual devotion troubles him?

The evidence supports Ellen White's frequent remarks that Jones's "heavenly credentials" were clearly evident during the immediate post-1888 era, far outweighing the occasional times when he failed to control his sharpness of utterance. When defending him, Ellen White acknowledged that he was only "human" and in the "intensity of [his] feelings … may make mistakes," and may speak "stronger" than "will impress minds favorably" (Letter 25b, 1892 [1010, 1011]). But overwhelmingly she supported and endorsed him throughout those critical times. Could it be that the Lord purposely permitted Jones to exhibit some personal weaknesses so that willful opposers could find hooks on which to hang their doubts? If so, behold the goodness and severity of the Lord!

Contrary to Knight's implication, Jones was clearly in no way to blame for "the wrought-up state of feeling" that prevailed at Minneapolis (Ms. 15, 1888 [164]), and according to Ellen White he gave no genuine reason for the negative feelings that prevailed so long afterwards, at least for about a decade. She even says of the "divinely appointed" 1888 messenger (Ms. 8-A, 1888) that his talking "strongly" was exactly what was needed, and that the Lord Himself had moved upon him to do so:

God … sees the temperament of the men He has chosen. He knows that none but earnest, firm, determined, strong-feeling men will view this work in its vital importance, and will put such firmness and decision into their testimonies that they will make a break against the barriers of Satan (Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 412,413).

Let no soul complain of the servants of God who have come to them with a heaven-sent message. Do not any longer pick flaws in them, saying, "They are too positive; they talk too strongly." They may talk strongly; but is it not needed? God will make the ears of the hearers tingle if they will not heed His voice or His message. He will denounce those who resist the word of God (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 410).

Opponents would of course judge such "strong talk" as "abrasive" when in reality it was not. They simply resented calls to reformation, as have most religious leaders throughout history. Correctly, Knight recognizes that those who rejected the message formed "a hard-core resistance" and "just did not seem to like Jones" (p. 49). Ellen White adds that the ancient Jewish leaders thought Christ abrasive, too, and times almost without number she compares them to those who persistently resented Jones's message (cf. Ms. 9, 13, 15, 1888 [69-171]; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 64, 65, 75-80, etc.).

The reader will want to see for himself the objective evidence in Jones's 1893 and 1895 sermons. He will note there a notably humble, sweet Christian spirit, nothing that displays a "habit of publicly belittling those who disagreed with him" (Knight, p. 53). Instead, he repeatedly included himself specifically as the most needy, corporately including himself among the rejectors of the latter rain truths at Minneapolis (cf. Bulletin, 1893, pp. 164-166, 185).

There was something noble in this 1893 confession, something a little Christlike, for he was one of those who brought the message and thus could hardly have been with those who rejected it. He could have gotten on his knees and said amen to Christ's prayer:

They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head … Then I restored that which I took not away (Psalm 69:4).

Suppose that an angel from heaven could have presented the straightforward truth of the 1888 history to that 1893 congregation; would some unbelieving, truth-resenting souls consider him as abrasive? Ellen White's writings imply that the answer is yes. But she was joyful that at last someone besides herself discerned what the spiritual issues were.

We are indebted solely to A.T. Robinson for his report 43 years later of the famous 1888 remark "blurted" by Jones about the ten horns that he says "called forth an open rebuke from Sister White" (statement, January 30, 1931; Knight, p. 35). Much of the "evidence" for Jones's alleged harshness rests on magnification of that apparently trivial incident. One wonders why Ellen White herself never saw fit to mention it, not even in her diary, frank as she was. Unbelievably, there is no hint of a single harsh or abrasive word by Jones alluded to in Ellen White's most extensive and detailed write-ups on the 1888 Conference (Mss. 21, 24, 1888, Ms. 30, 1889 [176-181, 203-229, 352-381]). There is nothing but the warmest endorsements throughout. Her enthusiastic attitude is summed up, "Every fiber of my heart said amen" (Ms. 5, 1889 [348, 349]). Would she say that of someone who was "abrasive"?