Our Roots, Pt. 4

Now that we have briefly addressed the historical and theological background of the Adventist Church’s origins, we will begin to look at the related issues of organization and structure. This topic was actually addressed in 1907 by a series of articles in the official Adventist periodical, The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. (This magazine’s name has since been shortened to The Adventist Review, which will be a more familiar name for most Adventists.) It seems that the Adventist Church was also facing a crisis of organization back then, complete with agitators for radical change, and this series of articles was written by the church leader A.G. Daniells in order to remind the Adventist membership of why things were the way they were and what theological reasons were driving the church’s ongoing direction.

Here we are reproducing a significant portion of the first article in that series, which was published on January 31, 1907, and the entire second article, published on February 7, 1907. These two articles make several theological references in explaining decisions regarding organization that we have not yet explained. For the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with what these references are all about we will provide a follow-up post to explain them. We trust our Adventist readers won’t mind the theological review.

#1

The system of organization adopted by Seventh-day Adventists and applied to the administrative affairs of the denomination has not come by chance, or mere happen-so. It did not take shape without thought, study, or purpose on the part of the pioneers of this cause. The subject of organization received the most careful consideration and thorough study from the ablest men associated with this movement in its early days. Organization had friends and foes. By these it was both approved and condemned. The brethren discussed and agitated the question for years before the agreement was reached that organization should have a place in this movement.

The fear of organization and the opposition to it by the pioneers of this cause may be easily and reasonably accounted for. The majority of those who at the first embraced the third angel’s message had been in the movement under the first angel’s message. In that movement, organization had no place. The purpose of the proclamation of the first angel’s message, the manner in which the proclamation was made, and the brief period of time it covered, appear to have made little demand for organization…

The prevailing sentiment regarding organization was clearly expressed by Josiah Litch in the Advent Shield, May, 1844, as quoted in the Review, Vol. 8, page 43. Mr. Litch was a prominent minister and writer in the first message. He said:--

No provision has been made for the establishment of permanent institutions, among Adventists. Indeed, we have no means of ascertaining the number of ministers, and others, who have embraced the Advent faith… All peculiarities of creed or policy have been lost sight of in the absorbing inquiry concerning the coming of the heavenly Bridegroom. Those who have engaged in this enterprise are from all the various sects in the land… All these have agreed to work together for the accomplishment of a certain object; and the organization to which this has given rise, so far as there is anything which may be called an organization, is of the most simple, voluntary, and primitive form… We neither expect nor desire any other organization, until we reach the New Jerusalem, and organize under the King of kings.

When the movement under the first angel’s message neared its culmination in 1844, the masses of those who embraced it, being unable to remain in their churches in peace, separated from them. The situation at that time was explained by Geo. Storrs, a prominent minister in the movement. Speaking of the attitude of the churches, he said:--

Which of them will suffer a soul to remain among them in peace, that openly and fearlessly avows his faith in the advent at the door? Are not the terms of remaining among them undisturbed, that you wholly refrain from a public expression of faith in the coming of the Lord this year, whatever your convictions may be on the subject, and however important you may feel it to be to cry, “Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come”?—“The Church and Its Organization,” page 89…

This experience led Mr. Storrs and many of his associates in the ministry to give the following advice to those who believed the advent message and found themselves separated from their churches:--

Take care that you do not seek to organize another church. No church can be organized by man’s invention but what it becomes Babylon the moment it is organized. The Lord organized his own church by the strong bond of love. Stronger than that can not be made; and when such bonds will not hold together the professed followers of Christ, they cease to be his followers, and drop off from the body as a matter of course.—“The Church and Its Organization,” page 87.

It was in this unorganized condition that thousands of these believers came up to the close of the prophetic period, at which time they fully expected the Lord would come. The terrible disappointment they experienced because he did not come, threw them into utter confusion, and the great mass fell to pieces like a rope of sand.

#2

When the ministers who had taken a leading part in proclaiming the first angel’s message saw the confusion into which the believers were thrown by the disappointment of 1844, and when they saw contention, division, and scattering following the confusion, they made earnest efforts to hold the people together until harmony and union could be established. To this end William Miller published an “Address to the Brethren,” in which he pointed out some of the dangers that threatened the cause with which they were connected. He said:--

The cause we advocate calls upon all men to read the Word of God, and to reason, judge, compare, and digest for themselves. This is certainly right, and is the privilege of all rational members of the community. Yet this very liberty may become a stumbling-block to many, and without charity, be the means of scattering, dividing, and causing contention among brethren… Our present difficulties arise more from the multiplicity of masters and leaders among us (some of whom are governed by carnal motives) than from any want of light.—“Life of Miller,” pages 350, 351.

These statements, made by this thoughtful, judicious leader of the movement within six months after the disappointment, reveal some of the causes of the disintegration that so quickly set in. Alarmed by the situation, the leaders called a conference to “consult together respecting the condition and wants of the brethren in the several sections of the country; that we may be better enabled to act in concert, and with more efficiency in the proclamation of gospel truths.” The conference convened at Albany, NY, April 29, 1845. Sixty-one ministers and delegates were present. A committee of twelve, of which William Miller was chairman, was appointed to prepare recommendations for the action of the conference. The committee prefaced its report with the following statement: --

In view of the many conflicting opinions, unscriptural views, leading to unseemly practices, and the sad divisions which have been thereby caused by some professing to be Adventists, we deem it incumbent on us to declare to the world our belief that the Scriptures teach, among others, the following important truths.—“Life of Miller,” page 344.

After giving a synopsis of the fundamental doctrines which they held, they offered the following recommendation regarding organization:--

Associated Action

We are induced, from present circumstances affecting our spiritual interests, to present, for your consideration, a few ideas touching associated action.

Order is heaven’s first law. All things emanating from God are constituted on principles of perfect order. The New Testament rules for the government of the church we regard as binding on the whole brotherhood of Christ. No circumstances can justify us in departing from the usages established by Christ and his apostles.

We regard and congregation of believers, who habitually assemble for the worship of God and the due observance of gospel ordinances, as a church of Christ. As such, it is an independent body, accountable only to the great Head of the church. To all such we recommend a careful examination of the Scriptures, and the adoption of such principles of association and order as are in accordance therewith, that they may enjoy the advantages of the church relation which Christ has instituted.—Ibid., page 349.

This recommendation was unanimously adopted. And this, it appears, was the first step taken by William Miller and his associates toward anything approaching permanent organization. It was taken immediately following the disappointment, and within a very short time after it had been declared by a prominent leader that they should take care never to “organize another church.”

This action is a plain, open acknowledgment that their former position regarding organization could not be safely maintained after the disappointment. It was a course which they saw was absolutely necessary in order to avert the utter disintegration that threatened them.

It is not difficult at this time to give a consistent explanation of the change that then took place. The first angel’s message was a warning to the whole world, including the existing churches. It was committed to the churches to proclaim. Pious men in those churches accepted the message, and gave their lives to its proclamation. Thus the movement under the first angel’s message began in the churches, and for a time was carried forward by them. Under these circumstances there seemed to be no demand for any organization outside of the established churches.

But a regrettable change took place in the churches. The majority of both the preachers and the members turned against the message. They refused to allow it to be proclaimed in their houses of worship, and manifested such hostility toward those who received it as to make it almost impossible for them to hold to the message and remain in their churches.

This change took place when the first message was nearing its culmination in 1844. This called for the proclamation of the second angel’s message, announcing the fall of Babylon. The message was then given with an emphasis that called out nearly the whole body of believers in the first message. This separation was immediately followed by the disappointment.

The situation thus created called for organization. The leaders recognized this, and endeavored to provide what was needed. But they failed on two fundamental points. First, they failed to discover the Scriptural explanation of the disappointment, and the work to be done following it. Second, they failed to obtain anything like an adequate understanding of the organization that would be required to secure the co-operation necessary to carry forward the comprehensive, world-wide movement that was to follow the disappointment. They looked through a glass darkly. Like the blind man, whose eyes the Master was opening, they saw “men as trees walking.” Their proposal was less than a half-way measure, and it failed.

Next: Disorganized Growth