Before we proceed any further with Our Roots we would like to emphasize a few key principles that have emerged so far. One is allowing adequate time and discussion in decision making. Another is the tone maintained by leadership seeking to bring about a change. Finally, there is the responsibility of those with influence to direct it properly.
In Our Roots, Pt. 11, we saw James White observing, “Organization has been postponed by this church until our ministers and people could come up unitedly to the work. There is no party feeling with those who feel the necessity of organization. They do not wish to move forward until all our ministers and people are prepared to go with them. How long shall we wait?” What we see here is a willingness to take as much time as is necessary for a new idea to be thoroughly considered and evaluated by those it is presented to, which is complemented by a decision making process that is fair and transparent.
Those with reservations about organization were allowed to voice them and present alternatives. They weren’t pushed into something with which they were uncomfortable. Nor were there any announcements that discussion of the issue could only happen at times and in places approved by their leaders. And they certainly weren’t told that all decisions were final and that no one could ever express disapproval of them. (One prime example of the openness to reconsider decisions was seen in Our Roots, Pt. 9, when the first Council of the Advent believers took a vote to advise local churches to organize and later rescinded that vote because it had not passed unanimously.) We could go on, but the contrast between this approach to change and that which happened at Takoma Park is obvious enough by now.
This principle of allowing a decision to take as long as it needs to take in order for all to be comfortable that it is the right one is not unique to this situation. It is a principle that the Adventist Church has consistently practiced throughout its existence. One contemporary example of this principle in action is the issue of women’s ordination. (For those not familiar with this issue, the Adventist Church does not recognize male and female clergy equally. Men who are recognized as being “called” to be a minister are “ordained” to do so. Women are not allowed to be ordained as ministers. In many countries there are women who function as ministers, but the highest acknowledgment the Church gives them is to make them “credentialed,” which is a step below ordination. There are also specific positions in the higher administrative structure of the Church which can only be held by someone who is ordained, which makes a glass ceiling for women in leadership within the Church.) The possibility of changing this policy so that there is no distinction has been considered by the world Church. An extreme simplification of the conclusion they reached is that there were cultures that just weren’t ready to recognize women as equal members of the clergy, so the Church would wait until they were ready before making the change. That conclusion was reached some years ago and the Church is still waiting.
At the local level the amount of time needed for a decision shouldn’t be as great as the years sometimes required for global decisions, but the principle still applies. If it is not possible to convince everyone of the need for a particular change within a reasonable amount of time it may well be that that particular change is not a good idea. Regardless of the final outcome of a decision, however, the process used to reach it should not be such as will leave anyone feeling that they were cheated or mislead.
It is also worth noting as we examine the history of Adventist organization that there was no labeling or marginalization of those opposed to the change by those who advocated it. To be sure, there were occasional expressions of frustration (such as James White characterizing certain reactions to the proposal of organization as “a stupid uncertainty”), but even comments like these were not directed at particular individuals. Rather, those advocating the change made a clear, reasoned presentation of the facts which made them believe change was necessary. The conclusion of the Address on Organization (Our Roots, Pt. 12) shows how the leadership attempted to always believe and express the best of those who disagreed with them, “We have seen with deep regret the distrust with which reforms of this kind are viewed, and trust it is for want of understanding the necessities of the case. We have examined it with carefulness and prayer, and hope and pray that you will examine it in the same manner, and believe that you will arrive at the same conclusion.”
Finally, there is the matter of how influence is used by those who have it. Notice, we do not say “if” or “whether” influence is used—just “how.” We submit that there is no such thing as choosing not to use your influence. Influence can be used by speaking or acting, or by not speaking or acting, and the latter scenario can be far more significant than the former. Of vital importance, then, is the care taken in being mindful of one’s influence and how best to use it for good. It is true that some have more influence than others, but often we underestimate how much influence we truly have, and whether it is great or small we must still take care to use it properly.
This danger of the influence that can be exerted by not acting is forcefully described by the statement from the Spirit of Prophesy at the close of Our Roots, Pt. 11. “The agitation of the subject of organization has revealed a great lack of moral courage on the part of ministers proclaiming present truth. Some who were convinced that organization was right failed to stand up boldly and advocate it. They let some few understand that they favored it. Was this all God required of them? — No; he was displeased with their cowardly silence, and lack of action. They feared blame and opposition. They watched the brethren generally to see how their pulse beat before standing manfully for what they believed to be right. The people waited for the voice of their favorite ministers in the truth, and because they could hear no response in favor from them, decided that the subject of organization was wrong. Thus the influence of some of the ministers was against this matter while they professed to be in favor. They were afraid of losing their influence. Some one must move here and bear responsibility, and venture his influence; and as he has become inured to censure and blame, he is suffered to bear it. His fellow laborers who should stand by his side and take their share of the burden, are looking on to see how he succeeds in fighting the battle alone. … I saw that all will be rewarded according as their work shall be. Those who shun responsibility will meet with loss in the end” (Grass River, St. Lawrence Co., N. Y., Aug. 16, 1861).
The statement above is as true today as when it was first written. Those who are not intentional about how their influence is exerted will nonetheless be exerting an influence, and it may well not be in a direction they desire. This is not to say that influence must always be actively exerted. In some situations the best method of exercising one’s influence is by not speaking or acting, but whether the method of influence is active or passive it should always be intentional because it is something for which God holds us accountable.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 12
The following is the Address on Organization which was commissioned by the conference of April 26, 1861, which raised so much opposition. It appeared in the Review and Herald on June 11, 1861.
Conference Address on Organization
Our late General Conference having requested us to address you on the subject of a more thorough and perfect organization of the Seventh-day Adventists, we, at this, our earliest opportunity, and with a ready mind, undertake to discharge our duty.
We shall, in the first place, call your attention to some facts in the early part of this message; and this we do for two reasons: first, it may serve to remove prejudice, if any yet exists on the subject; and second, the reader will not be able to appreciate our position and its difficulties without a consideration of those facts.
If we go back to a period of from six to nine years, we find the believers in the Third Angel's Message few in number, very much scattered, and in no place assuming to take the name of a church. Our views of the work before us were then mostly vague and indefinite, some still retaining the idea adopted by the body of Advent believers in 1844, with Wm. Miller at their head, that our work for "the world" was finished, and that the message was confined to those of the original Advent faith. So firmly was this believed that one of our number was nearly refused the message, the individual presenting it having doubts of the possibility of his salvation because he was not in "the '44 move." Such things may seem strange to most of our readers, but they serve well to illustrate our proposition, that many crude and erroneous views were entertained. Church organization and church order were alike unknown, and sometimes spoken against; and when the number of believers increased it was with the utmost caution that the simplest form of organization of a single church, was advanced and received. Many professed to see in this a step toward tyranny over the minds of Christians, and they were of course nearing the opposite extreme of anarchy and confusion. And when order was, to some extent, introduced, and wrongs corrected or separated from in compliance with gospel rules, some imagined that the introduction of order created the evils brought to light, instead of exposing and correcting wrongs already existing.
And according to our views of the work we had to do, was our method of labor. As individuals would go scores and even hundreds of miles to present the truth to one or two who had been believers in the first message, so would the laborers go long distances to visit, to comfort, and to strengthen the scattered ones who had embraced the faith. In all cases where difficulties existed they were untiring in their efforts to give aid, traveling far, holding meetings sometimes all night, enduring toils and trials sufficient to exhaust the energies of any class of men.
We are now placed in different circumstances; the number of believers is much increased and should we try to bestow the same amount of labor on each individual and church, we should utterly fail for want of both time and strength. But our friends and brethren will be ready to exclaim, "We do not want you to labor so now. Go out to the world and proclaim the truth," and this we desire to do. And it rejoices our hearts to know that the times have changed in respect to our opportunities; great events have transpired by which the minds of the people have been prepared to hear. But while we look on the extensive fields already white to the harvest with great concern, and would fain leave the churches established to grow up into the truth, we are burdened with the painful conviction that the scattered ones of former years, enjoying such labors and privileges as we have described, were far in advance of those of the present time, in living faith, deep devotion, and in all practical godliness which is indicated by a separation from the world and entire consecration, to the cause of God. We invite you, dear brethren and sisters, to read this declaration with care and with prayerful feelings; weigh well its import, and you will acknowledge that we, who are appointed to watch over you as those that must give an account, have cause for our feelings of sadness and anxiety over the prospect before us.
You are well aware that the times are perilous, and that a growth in grace is necessary to our salvation. And in order to this growth we would here record our solemn conviction, that you, the body of believers of the Third Angel's Message, must either have the labor above described bestowed on you, or some step must be taken—some means devised and adopted to supersede the necessity of it. But this labor cannot now be bestowed on all the scattered ones, as we have shown; therefore we conclude that means must be adopted for the preservation of order, the correction of wrongs, and consequent growth in grace and spiritual mindedness, or our churches and people will settle down into a cold, dull formality.
It is written that "one sinner destroyeth much good." An Achan in the camp caused the hosts of Israel to flee before their enemies. We have had some bitter experience in this matter. While we have been earnest to invite the Lord to come into our midst, we have neither been wise nor diligent to shut out the enemy. Thus have our prayers been hindered. We now invite your attention to a few points wherein reform is imperatively demanded. And first our
GENERAL CONFERENCES.
These have been, confessedly, our most important meetings; yet we have hardly held one that was fully entitled to the name; and at this time we have no means of knowing that their doings are according to the will of the body of the churches and believers. And it is very certain that a small minority of the churches have been represented in them, and they by no just and equal proportion. That our numbers have been small, and our business and labor limited, are evidently the reasons why we have had no serious difficulty in this respect; but as our circumstances are continually changing in both these respects, it would seem to be wise and prudent to have them held on a different basis.
Again, much of the business attended to at these conferences is of a local nature, especially concerning the locality or State wherein the conference is held. In this respect the wants of all cannot be equally attended to. This may be remedied by holding
STATE OR DISTRICT CONFERENCES.
We have several reasons to urge for the organization of such conferences. These are aimed at, and only aimed at, in the conferences now held in the several States from time to time, but they are open to all the objections that now stand against our general conferences. Some special necessities for the proper organization of such conferences we will notice.
We hold them essential to the efficiency of our ministry; and this in a two-fold manner. First that our accepted ministers may go out before the world with the endorsement and authority of the body with which they stand connected. This would often open the way for their introduction into school-houses, court-houses, or meeting-houses, which are often (and often properly) closed against irresponsible persons who cannot show that they have the confidence or sanction of any body of believers. And this stands closely related to the second point, which is, that our brethren be not imposed upon by false teachers, or conceited, self-called messengers of the third angel's message. Trouble has been occasioned and churches sometimes nearly ruined by those who professed to fill this office, who wore both unqualified and unworthy; but the churches had no authority to which to appeal, unless to those to whom God had entrusted the great burden of this work, but who could not have a personal acquaintance with everybody, and therefore could not always give timely and satisfactory information. Such conferences would be a great benefit by supplying the churches in every part of the field with the means of coming together in their several States or districts for social and public worship, and for the building of each other up in the word of the Lord. Of course the business would be done through the delegates of the churches.
These reasons we consider sufficient for an immediate adoption of the measure. But as urgent as these measures are, they are not the only ones that need to be adopted to preserve the order and purity of our churches. Nor would these of themselves greatly reduce our labor and care for the welfare of the scattered people of God. This can only be attained by adopting such rules as shall secure more perfect
ORDER IN THE CHURCHES.
This we shall examine under two heads, as affecting their business and their membership, and there are many considerations which apply equally to both.
Although the churches may stand strong and clear enough to transact business without the presence of a messenger, yet cases of discipline are often referred to a minister for his judgment by one or both of the parties. Now it is very evident that if all the charges, votes, and decisions were on record, it would greatly facilitate the matter, and enable him at once to give a definite and satisfactory opinion. Or if a matter should be appealed or reported to a conference composed of delegates of churches, it would be still more necessary to keep a record as the basis of such appeal or report. To do business by vote without keeping a record is a loose method, to say the least; and is often the means of dissatisfaction and confusion.
It is also necessary for the purity of our membership, as well as to know who shall vote in a business meeting, to have a record of the names of the members. Some small churches where the members have almost daily oversight of each other may think this unnecessary, but in larger churches, and in some small ones also, we have seen and felt the necessity of this. Thus it has been our lot to go into places as strangers and ask how many members there were, and it could not be told. Members seemed to come and go at their own pleasure, and when they became cold or disheartened, no one looked after them—no one knew their standing. This is not a new difficulty. We have long felt the necessity of efficient action on this point. It should be definitely known at all times who are and who are not considered members, and then the welfare of all may be looked after, and the erring may be reclaimed by timely action, or the unworthy withdrawn from in a manner to save the cause from reproach.
But this is especially necessary to save the ministers and churches from being imposed upon by those who move from place to place. A few instances may be given to illustrate this. 1. An individual in the extreme western part of Wisconsin was zealous for the truth, and took the part of an efficient member of the church where he lived, assuming to direct in spiritual things, writing to the Review, &c. But while he was professing to keep all the commandments, and was especially zealous for the fourth, it was well known that he left his former residence under the charge of transgressing another commandment. 2. A letter appeared in the Review some time since from an individual in Iowa, calling for help, stating that his family were alone in keeping the commandments in that place, and wishing a minister to come and preach the message there. Some who read that letter knew that the writer ran away from another State in debt and in disgrace. We leave you to judge what must be the influence of such persons, and what darkness a preacher would have to meet who should answer such calls. 3. A person came to a certain church, representing that he was oppressed for keeping the Sabbath, could not get work; that he was poor, and must move or suffer. The church aided him and brought him into their midst; but he proved to be lazy, and every way unworthy. On writing to the place of his former residence, they were informed that he had been withdrawn from as unworthy. But here the fruits of disorder were manifest. Some refused to receive the testimony of brethren abroad, asserting that [they] themselves were to be sole judges of their own members. Division was thus created, the church went into darkness and months passed before they were able to rise and extricate themselves. And all this because of the loose manner of recognizing members. Every person leaving a church by removal should obtain a letter, certifying to his standing; and without this precaution our churches are open to “confusion and every evil work." In the first two cases, if letters of fellowship had been required, the individuals would not have dared to hold out to the churches at large and to the world their false light; and in the last case the church would have avoided a great cause of declension and darkness, and the labor of a minister would not have been needed, as was the case, to bear a heavy burden that nobody should have borne. These are mere examples. Such things are, and have been, occurring almost continually.
The officers of the churches and their duties need to be considered, but this is properly the subject of a separate argument. Our object in this is to call your attention to the necessity of a more thorough organization, and invite your co-operation in the effort to effect it. We have seen with deep regret the distrust with which reforms of this kind are viewed, and trust it is for want of understanding the necessities of the case. We have examined it with carefulness and prayer, and hope and pray that you will examine it in the same manner, and believe that you will arrive at the same conclusion. We mourn the low state of many of our churches; the world is going down to ruin and must be warned; we are often burdened and perplexed at the amount of labor before us; and though we cannot expect to avoid all difficulty, our position and circumstances are such that any just and proper means of avoiding difficulty and trial in the churches are worthy of your most earnest consideration.
J.H. Waggoner, Joseph Bates,
James White, J. B. Frisbie,
J. N. Loughborough, M. E. Cornell,
E.W. Shortridge, Moses Hull,
John Byington.
Next: Organizing Local Churches
Conference Address on Organization
Our late General Conference having requested us to address you on the subject of a more thorough and perfect organization of the Seventh-day Adventists, we, at this, our earliest opportunity, and with a ready mind, undertake to discharge our duty.
We shall, in the first place, call your attention to some facts in the early part of this message; and this we do for two reasons: first, it may serve to remove prejudice, if any yet exists on the subject; and second, the reader will not be able to appreciate our position and its difficulties without a consideration of those facts.
If we go back to a period of from six to nine years, we find the believers in the Third Angel's Message few in number, very much scattered, and in no place assuming to take the name of a church. Our views of the work before us were then mostly vague and indefinite, some still retaining the idea adopted by the body of Advent believers in 1844, with Wm. Miller at their head, that our work for "the world" was finished, and that the message was confined to those of the original Advent faith. So firmly was this believed that one of our number was nearly refused the message, the individual presenting it having doubts of the possibility of his salvation because he was not in "the '44 move." Such things may seem strange to most of our readers, but they serve well to illustrate our proposition, that many crude and erroneous views were entertained. Church organization and church order were alike unknown, and sometimes spoken against; and when the number of believers increased it was with the utmost caution that the simplest form of organization of a single church, was advanced and received. Many professed to see in this a step toward tyranny over the minds of Christians, and they were of course nearing the opposite extreme of anarchy and confusion. And when order was, to some extent, introduced, and wrongs corrected or separated from in compliance with gospel rules, some imagined that the introduction of order created the evils brought to light, instead of exposing and correcting wrongs already existing.
And according to our views of the work we had to do, was our method of labor. As individuals would go scores and even hundreds of miles to present the truth to one or two who had been believers in the first message, so would the laborers go long distances to visit, to comfort, and to strengthen the scattered ones who had embraced the faith. In all cases where difficulties existed they were untiring in their efforts to give aid, traveling far, holding meetings sometimes all night, enduring toils and trials sufficient to exhaust the energies of any class of men.
We are now placed in different circumstances; the number of believers is much increased and should we try to bestow the same amount of labor on each individual and church, we should utterly fail for want of both time and strength. But our friends and brethren will be ready to exclaim, "We do not want you to labor so now. Go out to the world and proclaim the truth," and this we desire to do. And it rejoices our hearts to know that the times have changed in respect to our opportunities; great events have transpired by which the minds of the people have been prepared to hear. But while we look on the extensive fields already white to the harvest with great concern, and would fain leave the churches established to grow up into the truth, we are burdened with the painful conviction that the scattered ones of former years, enjoying such labors and privileges as we have described, were far in advance of those of the present time, in living faith, deep devotion, and in all practical godliness which is indicated by a separation from the world and entire consecration, to the cause of God. We invite you, dear brethren and sisters, to read this declaration with care and with prayerful feelings; weigh well its import, and you will acknowledge that we, who are appointed to watch over you as those that must give an account, have cause for our feelings of sadness and anxiety over the prospect before us.
You are well aware that the times are perilous, and that a growth in grace is necessary to our salvation. And in order to this growth we would here record our solemn conviction, that you, the body of believers of the Third Angel's Message, must either have the labor above described bestowed on you, or some step must be taken—some means devised and adopted to supersede the necessity of it. But this labor cannot now be bestowed on all the scattered ones, as we have shown; therefore we conclude that means must be adopted for the preservation of order, the correction of wrongs, and consequent growth in grace and spiritual mindedness, or our churches and people will settle down into a cold, dull formality.
It is written that "one sinner destroyeth much good." An Achan in the camp caused the hosts of Israel to flee before their enemies. We have had some bitter experience in this matter. While we have been earnest to invite the Lord to come into our midst, we have neither been wise nor diligent to shut out the enemy. Thus have our prayers been hindered. We now invite your attention to a few points wherein reform is imperatively demanded. And first our
GENERAL CONFERENCES.
These have been, confessedly, our most important meetings; yet we have hardly held one that was fully entitled to the name; and at this time we have no means of knowing that their doings are according to the will of the body of the churches and believers. And it is very certain that a small minority of the churches have been represented in them, and they by no just and equal proportion. That our numbers have been small, and our business and labor limited, are evidently the reasons why we have had no serious difficulty in this respect; but as our circumstances are continually changing in both these respects, it would seem to be wise and prudent to have them held on a different basis.
Again, much of the business attended to at these conferences is of a local nature, especially concerning the locality or State wherein the conference is held. In this respect the wants of all cannot be equally attended to. This may be remedied by holding
STATE OR DISTRICT CONFERENCES.
We have several reasons to urge for the organization of such conferences. These are aimed at, and only aimed at, in the conferences now held in the several States from time to time, but they are open to all the objections that now stand against our general conferences. Some special necessities for the proper organization of such conferences we will notice.
We hold them essential to the efficiency of our ministry; and this in a two-fold manner. First that our accepted ministers may go out before the world with the endorsement and authority of the body with which they stand connected. This would often open the way for their introduction into school-houses, court-houses, or meeting-houses, which are often (and often properly) closed against irresponsible persons who cannot show that they have the confidence or sanction of any body of believers. And this stands closely related to the second point, which is, that our brethren be not imposed upon by false teachers, or conceited, self-called messengers of the third angel's message. Trouble has been occasioned and churches sometimes nearly ruined by those who professed to fill this office, who wore both unqualified and unworthy; but the churches had no authority to which to appeal, unless to those to whom God had entrusted the great burden of this work, but who could not have a personal acquaintance with everybody, and therefore could not always give timely and satisfactory information. Such conferences would be a great benefit by supplying the churches in every part of the field with the means of coming together in their several States or districts for social and public worship, and for the building of each other up in the word of the Lord. Of course the business would be done through the delegates of the churches.
These reasons we consider sufficient for an immediate adoption of the measure. But as urgent as these measures are, they are not the only ones that need to be adopted to preserve the order and purity of our churches. Nor would these of themselves greatly reduce our labor and care for the welfare of the scattered people of God. This can only be attained by adopting such rules as shall secure more perfect
ORDER IN THE CHURCHES.
This we shall examine under two heads, as affecting their business and their membership, and there are many considerations which apply equally to both.
Although the churches may stand strong and clear enough to transact business without the presence of a messenger, yet cases of discipline are often referred to a minister for his judgment by one or both of the parties. Now it is very evident that if all the charges, votes, and decisions were on record, it would greatly facilitate the matter, and enable him at once to give a definite and satisfactory opinion. Or if a matter should be appealed or reported to a conference composed of delegates of churches, it would be still more necessary to keep a record as the basis of such appeal or report. To do business by vote without keeping a record is a loose method, to say the least; and is often the means of dissatisfaction and confusion.
It is also necessary for the purity of our membership, as well as to know who shall vote in a business meeting, to have a record of the names of the members. Some small churches where the members have almost daily oversight of each other may think this unnecessary, but in larger churches, and in some small ones also, we have seen and felt the necessity of this. Thus it has been our lot to go into places as strangers and ask how many members there were, and it could not be told. Members seemed to come and go at their own pleasure, and when they became cold or disheartened, no one looked after them—no one knew their standing. This is not a new difficulty. We have long felt the necessity of efficient action on this point. It should be definitely known at all times who are and who are not considered members, and then the welfare of all may be looked after, and the erring may be reclaimed by timely action, or the unworthy withdrawn from in a manner to save the cause from reproach.
But this is especially necessary to save the ministers and churches from being imposed upon by those who move from place to place. A few instances may be given to illustrate this. 1. An individual in the extreme western part of Wisconsin was zealous for the truth, and took the part of an efficient member of the church where he lived, assuming to direct in spiritual things, writing to the Review, &c. But while he was professing to keep all the commandments, and was especially zealous for the fourth, it was well known that he left his former residence under the charge of transgressing another commandment. 2. A letter appeared in the Review some time since from an individual in Iowa, calling for help, stating that his family were alone in keeping the commandments in that place, and wishing a minister to come and preach the message there. Some who read that letter knew that the writer ran away from another State in debt and in disgrace. We leave you to judge what must be the influence of such persons, and what darkness a preacher would have to meet who should answer such calls. 3. A person came to a certain church, representing that he was oppressed for keeping the Sabbath, could not get work; that he was poor, and must move or suffer. The church aided him and brought him into their midst; but he proved to be lazy, and every way unworthy. On writing to the place of his former residence, they were informed that he had been withdrawn from as unworthy. But here the fruits of disorder were manifest. Some refused to receive the testimony of brethren abroad, asserting that [they] themselves were to be sole judges of their own members. Division was thus created, the church went into darkness and months passed before they were able to rise and extricate themselves. And all this because of the loose manner of recognizing members. Every person leaving a church by removal should obtain a letter, certifying to his standing; and without this precaution our churches are open to “confusion and every evil work." In the first two cases, if letters of fellowship had been required, the individuals would not have dared to hold out to the churches at large and to the world their false light; and in the last case the church would have avoided a great cause of declension and darkness, and the labor of a minister would not have been needed, as was the case, to bear a heavy burden that nobody should have borne. These are mere examples. Such things are, and have been, occurring almost continually.
The officers of the churches and their duties need to be considered, but this is properly the subject of a separate argument. Our object in this is to call your attention to the necessity of a more thorough organization, and invite your co-operation in the effort to effect it. We have seen with deep regret the distrust with which reforms of this kind are viewed, and trust it is for want of understanding the necessities of the case. We have examined it with carefulness and prayer, and hope and pray that you will examine it in the same manner, and believe that you will arrive at the same conclusion. We mourn the low state of many of our churches; the world is going down to ruin and must be warned; we are often burdened and perplexed at the amount of labor before us; and though we cannot expect to avoid all difficulty, our position and circumstances are such that any just and proper means of avoiding difficulty and trial in the churches are worthy of your most earnest consideration.
J.H. Waggoner, Joseph Bates,
James White, J. B. Frisbie,
J. N. Loughborough, M. E. Cornell,
E.W. Shortridge, Moses Hull,
John Byington.
Next: Organizing Local Churches
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 11
Organization - No. 10 (Review and Herald, April 4, 1907)
In the midst of the agitation that followed the council on organization, Elder White wrote a stirring article on the subject, concluding with these considerations: —
For managing the amount of capital necessary for the prosecution of this expanding work, and in order to a more equal distribution of burdens, a business organization is necessary. The necessity and propriety of this are seen at once by the great majority; but some are immediately thrown into a panic of fear, or a labyrinth of mistrust. What is the matter here? We ask again, Has the light suddenly gone out? Are the body all at once left to plunge into a course which will end only in destruction? Has the pillar by day and the fire by night been swept away by some storm-cloud of coming evil? If not, do we well to distrust God, and flee at phantoms of our own conjuring? And again, it is found necessary to have some title by which to designate this people. A name, at once simple, appropriate, and indicative of the leading points of our faith, as suggested and recommended; and yet in the eyes of some this instantly becomes a great camel, which they can by no means swallow. How is this? Once more we put the question, Have the leaders, light and truth, suddenly deserted the little flock? Have their eyes all been drawn away by an ignis fatuus from the true light? We do not believe it. We believe that in all these things the church are being providentially guided; that light and truth are still leading the way; and that it will as clearly appear hereafter that these moves are right and in God's order, as it now appears that past moves, which have been more or less staunchly opposed, have been directed of him. And while we continue to plead earnestly with the Lord to still send out his light and his truth, and to let them lead us, we do not believe he will withhold them from us.— Review and Herald, Vol. XVII, page 188.
April 26, 1861, another conference was called at Battle Creek to take the final steps to complete the organization of the Review and Herald Publishing Association. At this conference the question of organizing churches was given careful consideration, and the following resolution
was adopted: —
That the ministers that are assembled at this conference be requested to write out an address on the subject of church organization.— Id., page 189.
This resolution aroused much opposition, and in a short time one of the ministers in the field decided to withdraw from the body, and notified the brethren through the REVIEW. Here is his letter: —
I feel it to be my duty to speak a few words through the REVIEW to the brethren scattered abroad, that they may know how I stand in relation to organization under a name, that brethren may know where to bestow their sympathy. I would not have any deceived in this matter. The Advent people are very dear to me. I have felt that their trials have been my trials, and their prosperity has been my prosperity. But I have not that unison of feeling at present. I feel that the union is broken, for I do not sympathize with the body of Adventists in relation to organizing under the name Seventh-day Adventists, and enrolling names under that head. As I feel, I never could consent to have my name enrolled on any class book, or church book, under any sectarian name. I might give my reasons, but that would be useless. I mean to keep my conscience void of offense toward God and toward man, and I must get the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name.
And I would here say that I hold myself no longer amenable to that body of people calling themselves Seventh-day Adventists, nor any connection with them any farther than the Spirit of the Lord connects one Christian with another.—Id., Vol. XVIII, page 52.
Although the believers were generally coming to see the necessity of organization, a letter of this kind from one of the ministers could not fail to make a very unfavorable impression. This led Elder White to point out very clearly the experiences they were passing through. He said: —
On our Eastern tour thus far we seem to be wading through the influence of a stupid uncertainty upon the subject of organization. This is as might be expected from the circumstances connected with the introduction of the subject among us. ... If all who were convinced of the necessity of organization had spoken out freely, victory would have turned, and the poison of anti-organization would have been at once removed. But our ministers were generally silent. Some exerted a strong influence against organization, while the influence of others fell indirectly through their silence into the wrong scale with dreadful weight, and many of our brethren, especially in the East, stood in doubt. The brethren in Pennsylvania voted down organization, and the cause in Ohio has been dreadfully shaken. It has suffered everywhere. . . . There is everywhere some one to hold back. They have no valid reasons for so doing, still they hold back. The infection was deep and stupefying. . . . The place of worship of the Seventh-day Adventists of Battle Creek is still the property of S. T. Belden. Organization has been postponed by this church until our ministers and people could come up unitedly to the work. There is no party feeling with those who feel the necessity of organization. They do not wish to move forward until all our ministers and people are prepared to go with them. How long shall we wait? . . .
It is a fact that need not be denied, that instead of our being a united people, growing stronger, we are in many places but little better than broken fragments, still scattering and growing weaker. A few years since we could report success and additions to the ranks at every appointment on our Eastern and Western tours. Now these conference meetings are scenes of wearing labor to hold together and strengthen what remains.— Id., page 100.
It was at this point in the controversy that communications from Sister White began to appear in the REVIEW on this subject. The following clear, decided statement is the first that was given in the REVIE.W from the spirit of prophecy:—
I was shown that some have been fearing they should become Babylon if they organized; but the churches in central New York have been perfect Babylon, confusion. And now unless the churches are so organized that they can carry out and enforce order, they have nothing to hope for in the future. They must scatter into fragments. Previous teachings have nourished the elements of disunion. A spirit has been cherished to watch and accuse, rather than to build up. If ministers of God would unitedly take their position and maintain it with decision, there would be a uniting influence among the flock of God. Separating bars would be broken into fragments. Hearts would flow together and unite like two drops of water. Then there would be power and strength in the ranks of Sabbath-keepers far exceeding anything we have yet witnessed. The hearts of God's servants are made sad by meeting, as they journey from church to church, the opposing influence of other ministering brethren. Individuals have stood ready to oppose every step of advance God's people have made. Those who have dared to venture out have their hearts saddened and distressed by the lack of union of action on the part of their fellow laborers. We are living in solemn times. Satan and evil angels are working with mighty power, with the world on their side to help them. And professed Sabbathkeepers, claiming to believe important, solemn truth, unite their forces with the combined influence of the powers of darkness to distract and tear down that which God designs to build up. Their influence is recorded as those who retard the work of advance and reform among God's people.
The agitation of the subject of organization has revealed a great lack of moral courage on the part of ministers proclaiming present truth. Some who were convinced that organization was right failed to stand up boldly and advocate it. They let some few understand that they favored it. Was this all God required of them? — No; he was displeased with their cowardly silence, and lack of action. They feared blame and opposition. They watched the brethren generally to see how their pulse beat before standing manfully for what they believed to be right. The people waited for the voice of their favorite ministers in the truth, and because they could hear no response in favor from them, decided that the subject of organization was wrong. Thus the influence of some of the ministers was against this matter while they professed to be in favor. They were afraid of losing their influence. Some one must move here and bear responsibility, and venture his influence; and as he has become inured to censure and blame, he is suffered to bear it. His fellow laborers who should stand by his side and take their share of the burden, are looking on to see how he succeeds in fighting the battle alone. But God marks his distress, his anguish, his tears, his discouragements and despair, while his mind is taxed almost beyond endurance; and as he is ready to sink, God lifts him up and points him to the rest for the weary, the reward for the faithful; and again he puts has shoulder under the heavy burden. I saw that all will be rewarded according as their work shall be. Those who shun responsibility will meet with loss in the end. The time for ministers to stand together is when the battle goes hard.
The above was written at “Grass River, St. Lawrence Co., N. Y., Aug. 16, 1861," and was printed in the REVIEW AND HERALD, Vol. XVIII, page 102.
This message, which was followed by others, giving clear, definite instruction regarding organization, aided greatly to settle the controversy.
Next: The Address on Organization
In the midst of the agitation that followed the council on organization, Elder White wrote a stirring article on the subject, concluding with these considerations: —
For managing the amount of capital necessary for the prosecution of this expanding work, and in order to a more equal distribution of burdens, a business organization is necessary. The necessity and propriety of this are seen at once by the great majority; but some are immediately thrown into a panic of fear, or a labyrinth of mistrust. What is the matter here? We ask again, Has the light suddenly gone out? Are the body all at once left to plunge into a course which will end only in destruction? Has the pillar by day and the fire by night been swept away by some storm-cloud of coming evil? If not, do we well to distrust God, and flee at phantoms of our own conjuring? And again, it is found necessary to have some title by which to designate this people. A name, at once simple, appropriate, and indicative of the leading points of our faith, as suggested and recommended; and yet in the eyes of some this instantly becomes a great camel, which they can by no means swallow. How is this? Once more we put the question, Have the leaders, light and truth, suddenly deserted the little flock? Have their eyes all been drawn away by an ignis fatuus from the true light? We do not believe it. We believe that in all these things the church are being providentially guided; that light and truth are still leading the way; and that it will as clearly appear hereafter that these moves are right and in God's order, as it now appears that past moves, which have been more or less staunchly opposed, have been directed of him. And while we continue to plead earnestly with the Lord to still send out his light and his truth, and to let them lead us, we do not believe he will withhold them from us.— Review and Herald, Vol. XVII, page 188.
April 26, 1861, another conference was called at Battle Creek to take the final steps to complete the organization of the Review and Herald Publishing Association. At this conference the question of organizing churches was given careful consideration, and the following resolution
was adopted: —
That the ministers that are assembled at this conference be requested to write out an address on the subject of church organization.— Id., page 189.
This resolution aroused much opposition, and in a short time one of the ministers in the field decided to withdraw from the body, and notified the brethren through the REVIEW. Here is his letter: —
I feel it to be my duty to speak a few words through the REVIEW to the brethren scattered abroad, that they may know how I stand in relation to organization under a name, that brethren may know where to bestow their sympathy. I would not have any deceived in this matter. The Advent people are very dear to me. I have felt that their trials have been my trials, and their prosperity has been my prosperity. But I have not that unison of feeling at present. I feel that the union is broken, for I do not sympathize with the body of Adventists in relation to organizing under the name Seventh-day Adventists, and enrolling names under that head. As I feel, I never could consent to have my name enrolled on any class book, or church book, under any sectarian name. I might give my reasons, but that would be useless. I mean to keep my conscience void of offense toward God and toward man, and I must get the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name.
And I would here say that I hold myself no longer amenable to that body of people calling themselves Seventh-day Adventists, nor any connection with them any farther than the Spirit of the Lord connects one Christian with another.—Id., Vol. XVIII, page 52.
Although the believers were generally coming to see the necessity of organization, a letter of this kind from one of the ministers could not fail to make a very unfavorable impression. This led Elder White to point out very clearly the experiences they were passing through. He said: —
On our Eastern tour thus far we seem to be wading through the influence of a stupid uncertainty upon the subject of organization. This is as might be expected from the circumstances connected with the introduction of the subject among us. ... If all who were convinced of the necessity of organization had spoken out freely, victory would have turned, and the poison of anti-organization would have been at once removed. But our ministers were generally silent. Some exerted a strong influence against organization, while the influence of others fell indirectly through their silence into the wrong scale with dreadful weight, and many of our brethren, especially in the East, stood in doubt. The brethren in Pennsylvania voted down organization, and the cause in Ohio has been dreadfully shaken. It has suffered everywhere. . . . There is everywhere some one to hold back. They have no valid reasons for so doing, still they hold back. The infection was deep and stupefying. . . . The place of worship of the Seventh-day Adventists of Battle Creek is still the property of S. T. Belden. Organization has been postponed by this church until our ministers and people could come up unitedly to the work. There is no party feeling with those who feel the necessity of organization. They do not wish to move forward until all our ministers and people are prepared to go with them. How long shall we wait? . . .
It is a fact that need not be denied, that instead of our being a united people, growing stronger, we are in many places but little better than broken fragments, still scattering and growing weaker. A few years since we could report success and additions to the ranks at every appointment on our Eastern and Western tours. Now these conference meetings are scenes of wearing labor to hold together and strengthen what remains.— Id., page 100.
It was at this point in the controversy that communications from Sister White began to appear in the REVIEW on this subject. The following clear, decided statement is the first that was given in the REVIE.W from the spirit of prophecy:—
I was shown that some have been fearing they should become Babylon if they organized; but the churches in central New York have been perfect Babylon, confusion. And now unless the churches are so organized that they can carry out and enforce order, they have nothing to hope for in the future. They must scatter into fragments. Previous teachings have nourished the elements of disunion. A spirit has been cherished to watch and accuse, rather than to build up. If ministers of God would unitedly take their position and maintain it with decision, there would be a uniting influence among the flock of God. Separating bars would be broken into fragments. Hearts would flow together and unite like two drops of water. Then there would be power and strength in the ranks of Sabbath-keepers far exceeding anything we have yet witnessed. The hearts of God's servants are made sad by meeting, as they journey from church to church, the opposing influence of other ministering brethren. Individuals have stood ready to oppose every step of advance God's people have made. Those who have dared to venture out have their hearts saddened and distressed by the lack of union of action on the part of their fellow laborers. We are living in solemn times. Satan and evil angels are working with mighty power, with the world on their side to help them. And professed Sabbathkeepers, claiming to believe important, solemn truth, unite their forces with the combined influence of the powers of darkness to distract and tear down that which God designs to build up. Their influence is recorded as those who retard the work of advance and reform among God's people.
The agitation of the subject of organization has revealed a great lack of moral courage on the part of ministers proclaiming present truth. Some who were convinced that organization was right failed to stand up boldly and advocate it. They let some few understand that they favored it. Was this all God required of them? — No; he was displeased with their cowardly silence, and lack of action. They feared blame and opposition. They watched the brethren generally to see how their pulse beat before standing manfully for what they believed to be right. The people waited for the voice of their favorite ministers in the truth, and because they could hear no response in favor from them, decided that the subject of organization was wrong. Thus the influence of some of the ministers was against this matter while they professed to be in favor. They were afraid of losing their influence. Some one must move here and bear responsibility, and venture his influence; and as he has become inured to censure and blame, he is suffered to bear it. His fellow laborers who should stand by his side and take their share of the burden, are looking on to see how he succeeds in fighting the battle alone. But God marks his distress, his anguish, his tears, his discouragements and despair, while his mind is taxed almost beyond endurance; and as he is ready to sink, God lifts him up and points him to the rest for the weary, the reward for the faithful; and again he puts has shoulder under the heavy burden. I saw that all will be rewarded according as their work shall be. Those who shun responsibility will meet with loss in the end. The time for ministers to stand together is when the battle goes hard.
The above was written at “Grass River, St. Lawrence Co., N. Y., Aug. 16, 1861," and was printed in the REVIEW AND HERALD, Vol. XVIII, page 102.
This message, which was followed by others, giving clear, definite instruction regarding organization, aided greatly to settle the controversy.
Next: The Address on Organization
Friday, January 14, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 10
Organization, No. 9 (Review and Herald, March 28, 1907)
Two important decisions were reached by the brethren in the general council held in 1860.
First, it was decided that a legal organization should be effected to hold the property of the Review and Herald Publishing plant, and to manage its business affairs. Definite arrangements were made to carry this decision into effect at the earliest possible opportunity. Second, a name was chosen by which we as a people should thereafter be known.
Having definitely settled these two questions, the Council adjourned, and the brethren separated without reaching an agreement regarding the organization of churches. And as far as the report of the proceedings indicates, the organization of conferences was not even suggested.
After reading the report of the Council as it appeared in the REVIEW, some of the brethren sent to the editor statements of their opinions regarding the decisions of the Council. Elder John Byington wrote: —
I am glad to learn that the conference saw eye to eye in forming a legal association, so that there may be order in the temporal matters of the church. If it is right for a brother to give or take a deed of a house, in my mind it is equally so for an association to so arrange that they can legally hold a meeting-house or printing establishment. . . .
As to a name I have sometimes thought the plain scriptural term, "Church of God," was all that is necessary. But in reflecting more on this subject, I see that God has given to his people and to individuals names suitable to the time and circumstances under which they were placed. ... I would say to my brethren scattered abroad I can not see a reasonable or scriptural objection to the name Seventh-day Adventists, as it is significant of the position the church of God must occupy in the time of the end.— Review and Herald, Vol. XVI, page 189.
The associate editor of the REVIEW who at first opposed Elder White's suggestion concerning organization expressed himself as follows: —
I am truly glad to hear from the conference, by brethren that were present, and feel to thank the Lord for the unity of spirit that exists among his people, and which pervades their assemblies. I do not feel like waiting for the full report in the paper, but upon the information received from brethren who were present, can say, I am persuaded that the means recommended are in accordance with the will of God. . . .
In my first articles on the subject of organization, I was wrong in taking the position that the property of the church was properly held. This point, upon consideration, I immediately yielded.
My only fear relating to organization has been the fear of offending God by changing our scriptural organization for an unscriptural one. This, if I understand it, has been avoided. It is not recommended that we become incorporated as a church, but that a business association merely be formed so as to conform to the usages of the law. The wisdom of the conference has devised a plan to avoid the evil, and I trust also that they had the Spirit of God. . . .
I wish to counteract and remove, as far as possible, the injurious influence of my hasty communication on the subject of legal organization. I did not weigh the matter as I should. ... I might have suggested a plan of organization avoiding the evil which I feared, instead of thus confidently and self-complacently recommending that nothing should be done. I regret that I did not consider the matter carefully and prayerfully, before writing in a manner not calculated to keep the unity of the Spirit. I hope that none will stumble over this into perdition. I ask forgiveness of all the dear people of God.— Id., page 196, and Vol. XVII, page 136.
These open, frank admissions of error in his first position regarding organization, and the hearty approval of the decision of his brethren in Council, show that our brother possessed those noble and admirable traits of character which make for peace and unity among brethren.
Not all, however, were pleased with the decisions of the Council. The following expression of opposition came from Ohio: —
We conclude from present aspects that the name, "Seventh-day Adventists" is being made obligatory upon our brethren in present truth, and if so be that it is considered a test of fellowship and loyalty to the precious cause of truth, we most earnestly request Brother and Sister White to call a conference for Ohio at Gilboa, at their earliest convenience. This we deem necessary for the following reasons:—
1. Without further light Ohio can not submit to the name, Seventh-day Adventists, as either a test, or an appropriate name for God's people.
2. Being appointed a finance committee at the last conference, and having now on hand means for carrying on the cause in Ohio, we could not conscientiously expend those means in any other than the advancement and extension of the truth and church of God.
3. If such means are to be expended otherwise, it will be necessary for the churches in Ohio to assemble in conference and give instructions to that effect, and also choose some other committee to make the disbursements....
J. DUDLEY,
L. E. JONES,
J. P. FLEMING,
Finance Committee for Ohio.
— Review and Herald, Vol. XVII, page 164.
One member of this committee repudiated this statement to which his name was attached. He wrote : —
I wish to say through the REVIEW that I did not write the notice of the secession movement in Gilboa, Ohio, neither did I ever know its contents until I saw it in the REVIEW, nor did I authorize any one to indorse my name to such sentiments as therein contained. I do not, however, wish to be understood as intimating that there is dishonesty in this, but rather a misunderstanding. We expect it to be corrected by the writer. I would say, My sympathy is with the REVIEW. Joseph Dudley.— Id., page 181.
Seven believers in Green Spring, Ohio, wrote as follows: —
We do not indorse the article of the Financial Committee, as set forth in REVIEW No. 21. We receive the name, Seventh-day Adventists, because it contains the two leading principles of our faith: first, the second coming of our Lord; and second, it sets forth the fourth commandment. On the other hand, the name, "Church of God," is not appropriate, because there are several churches by that name, and so many by the same name would make confusion. —Id., page 181.
Seven brethren at Portage, Ohio, sent this protest to the REVIEW : —
It was with mingled feelings of grief, disappointment, and shame that we read the statement from the Finance Committee for this State (Brethren Dudley, Fleming, and Jones, of Gilboa), as published in No. 21 of the REVIEW.
It is a mystery to us how they could speak in the strain they have on the matter of "the name" for Ohio; especially as all in the church at Portage, and all at Lovett's Grove, are unanimous in the approval of the action taken at Battle Creek on this subject; and with pain we have realized that the only dissenting vote was from Ohio. We are thankful for so fitting and appropriate and unassuming a name as Seventh-day Adventists.
We simply protest against the communication of the committee, hoping they may yet repent of their error. We greatly fear that all those who are neglectful of, or inattentive to, the "Testimonies" Nos. I to VI, and to "Spiritual Gifts," Vols. I and II, are making a grievous and fatal mistake. Yours for union with God and his people.— Id., page 181.
Elder T. J. Butler who seems to have been the leader of the opposition in Ohio, published an acknowledgment of his error in which he said: —
I see from Brother White's remarks appended to our call for a conference, that he "never thought of making the name a test, neither knew of any in Michigan who did." Well, I am glad that he has said so. It has relieved our minds very much. True, we understood at the Battle Creek conference that it was to be no test; but since that time divers letters have been sent to this church from different points which breathed a different sentiment, from which some of us concluded that probably the name was becoming a test. I am sorry that we were so fast in coming to that conclusion, as in so doing we wronged our brethren and also ourselves. We ask pardon for our haste, and promise to try to be more prudent in future. T. J. Butler.— Id., page 181.
The publication of these statements helped to settle affairs in Ohio.
Next: Another Council and Fresh Opposition
Two important decisions were reached by the brethren in the general council held in 1860.
First, it was decided that a legal organization should be effected to hold the property of the Review and Herald Publishing plant, and to manage its business affairs. Definite arrangements were made to carry this decision into effect at the earliest possible opportunity. Second, a name was chosen by which we as a people should thereafter be known.
Having definitely settled these two questions, the Council adjourned, and the brethren separated without reaching an agreement regarding the organization of churches. And as far as the report of the proceedings indicates, the organization of conferences was not even suggested.
After reading the report of the Council as it appeared in the REVIEW, some of the brethren sent to the editor statements of their opinions regarding the decisions of the Council. Elder John Byington wrote: —
I am glad to learn that the conference saw eye to eye in forming a legal association, so that there may be order in the temporal matters of the church. If it is right for a brother to give or take a deed of a house, in my mind it is equally so for an association to so arrange that they can legally hold a meeting-house or printing establishment. . . .
As to a name I have sometimes thought the plain scriptural term, "Church of God," was all that is necessary. But in reflecting more on this subject, I see that God has given to his people and to individuals names suitable to the time and circumstances under which they were placed. ... I would say to my brethren scattered abroad I can not see a reasonable or scriptural objection to the name Seventh-day Adventists, as it is significant of the position the church of God must occupy in the time of the end.— Review and Herald, Vol. XVI, page 189.
The associate editor of the REVIEW who at first opposed Elder White's suggestion concerning organization expressed himself as follows: —
I am truly glad to hear from the conference, by brethren that were present, and feel to thank the Lord for the unity of spirit that exists among his people, and which pervades their assemblies. I do not feel like waiting for the full report in the paper, but upon the information received from brethren who were present, can say, I am persuaded that the means recommended are in accordance with the will of God. . . .
In my first articles on the subject of organization, I was wrong in taking the position that the property of the church was properly held. This point, upon consideration, I immediately yielded.
My only fear relating to organization has been the fear of offending God by changing our scriptural organization for an unscriptural one. This, if I understand it, has been avoided. It is not recommended that we become incorporated as a church, but that a business association merely be formed so as to conform to the usages of the law. The wisdom of the conference has devised a plan to avoid the evil, and I trust also that they had the Spirit of God. . . .
I wish to counteract and remove, as far as possible, the injurious influence of my hasty communication on the subject of legal organization. I did not weigh the matter as I should. ... I might have suggested a plan of organization avoiding the evil which I feared, instead of thus confidently and self-complacently recommending that nothing should be done. I regret that I did not consider the matter carefully and prayerfully, before writing in a manner not calculated to keep the unity of the Spirit. I hope that none will stumble over this into perdition. I ask forgiveness of all the dear people of God.— Id., page 196, and Vol. XVII, page 136.
These open, frank admissions of error in his first position regarding organization, and the hearty approval of the decision of his brethren in Council, show that our brother possessed those noble and admirable traits of character which make for peace and unity among brethren.
Not all, however, were pleased with the decisions of the Council. The following expression of opposition came from Ohio: —
We conclude from present aspects that the name, "Seventh-day Adventists" is being made obligatory upon our brethren in present truth, and if so be that it is considered a test of fellowship and loyalty to the precious cause of truth, we most earnestly request Brother and Sister White to call a conference for Ohio at Gilboa, at their earliest convenience. This we deem necessary for the following reasons:—
1. Without further light Ohio can not submit to the name, Seventh-day Adventists, as either a test, or an appropriate name for God's people.
2. Being appointed a finance committee at the last conference, and having now on hand means for carrying on the cause in Ohio, we could not conscientiously expend those means in any other than the advancement and extension of the truth and church of God.
3. If such means are to be expended otherwise, it will be necessary for the churches in Ohio to assemble in conference and give instructions to that effect, and also choose some other committee to make the disbursements....
J. DUDLEY,
L. E. JONES,
J. P. FLEMING,
Finance Committee for Ohio.
— Review and Herald, Vol. XVII, page 164.
One member of this committee repudiated this statement to which his name was attached. He wrote : —
I wish to say through the REVIEW that I did not write the notice of the secession movement in Gilboa, Ohio, neither did I ever know its contents until I saw it in the REVIEW, nor did I authorize any one to indorse my name to such sentiments as therein contained. I do not, however, wish to be understood as intimating that there is dishonesty in this, but rather a misunderstanding. We expect it to be corrected by the writer. I would say, My sympathy is with the REVIEW. Joseph Dudley.— Id., page 181.
Seven believers in Green Spring, Ohio, wrote as follows: —
We do not indorse the article of the Financial Committee, as set forth in REVIEW No. 21. We receive the name, Seventh-day Adventists, because it contains the two leading principles of our faith: first, the second coming of our Lord; and second, it sets forth the fourth commandment. On the other hand, the name, "Church of God," is not appropriate, because there are several churches by that name, and so many by the same name would make confusion. —Id., page 181.
Seven brethren at Portage, Ohio, sent this protest to the REVIEW : —
It was with mingled feelings of grief, disappointment, and shame that we read the statement from the Finance Committee for this State (Brethren Dudley, Fleming, and Jones, of Gilboa), as published in No. 21 of the REVIEW.
It is a mystery to us how they could speak in the strain they have on the matter of "the name" for Ohio; especially as all in the church at Portage, and all at Lovett's Grove, are unanimous in the approval of the action taken at Battle Creek on this subject; and with pain we have realized that the only dissenting vote was from Ohio. We are thankful for so fitting and appropriate and unassuming a name as Seventh-day Adventists.
We simply protest against the communication of the committee, hoping they may yet repent of their error. We greatly fear that all those who are neglectful of, or inattentive to, the "Testimonies" Nos. I to VI, and to "Spiritual Gifts," Vols. I and II, are making a grievous and fatal mistake. Yours for union with God and his people.— Id., page 181.
Elder T. J. Butler who seems to have been the leader of the opposition in Ohio, published an acknowledgment of his error in which he said: —
I see from Brother White's remarks appended to our call for a conference, that he "never thought of making the name a test, neither knew of any in Michigan who did." Well, I am glad that he has said so. It has relieved our minds very much. True, we understood at the Battle Creek conference that it was to be no test; but since that time divers letters have been sent to this church from different points which breathed a different sentiment, from which some of us concluded that probably the name was becoming a test. I am sorry that we were so fast in coming to that conclusion, as in so doing we wronged our brethren and also ourselves. We ask pardon for our haste, and promise to try to be more prudent in future. T. J. Butler.— Id., page 181.
The publication of these statements helped to settle affairs in Ohio.
Next: Another Council and Fresh Opposition
Monday, January 10, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 9
Organization—Nos. 7 & 8 (Review and Herald, March 14 & 21, 1907)
#7
In an editorial relating to the General Council held in Battle Creek to consider the question of organization, the editor of the REVIEW said: —
We were gratified to see quite a full representation of preachers from different parts. Among these were Brethren M. Hull and M. E. Cornell from Iowa; Wm. S. Ingraham from Wisconsin; Joseph Bates, J. H. Waggoner, James White, J. N. Loughborough, J. B. Frisbie, R. J. Lawrence, and J. L. Edgar, from Michigan; T. J. Butler and G. W. Holt, from Ohio; E. A, Poole, from New York; and also J. N. Andrews and C. W. Sperry from their labors in that State the past summer.
Many brethren met for the first time at this meeting, whose cordial salutations and beaming countenances bespoke their joy at meeting, their union of heart and their love for the truth. As the hour arrived for religious exercises at the commencement of the Sabbath, the house was densely filled with the brethren and sisters who had come up from different States to this happy gathering to wait upon the Lord and receive his promises. — Review and Herald, Vol. XVI, page 156, Oct. 2, 1860.
The official report of the business proceedings of this Council was printed in three consecutive numbers of the REVIEW, and, altogether, fills twenty-five pages of the paper. The first meeting of the Council was held Sept. 29, 1860. Elder Joseph Bates was elected chairman, and Uriah Smith secretary.
After the delegates had expressed their views in a general way regarding organization, Elder T. J. Butler, from Ohio, made the following motion: —
I will propose, Mr. Chairman, through you to this conference, that we organize upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone; and that we call ourselves the Church of God. The foundation is a sure one; it has got God's seal upon it; and such a building he will inhabit by his Spirit. We propose the organization of Eph. 2:20. — Id., page 169.
This is the first definite proposal for organization and the adoption of a church or denominational name ever made in the general councils of our people. Although this resolution was not adopted by the Council, it helped to focus the discussion of the question, and called out some very interesting and pointed statements for and against organization. Elder E. A. Poole, from New York, said: —
I hardly know how to get out what I would like to say upon this subject. It is a subject on which I have felt and thought much. It is a subject in which is involved very important consequences. The way the cause has been managed seems to have been blessed of God; and if it could go on so still, and those who have conducted it felt free to still act as they have acted, it seems to me it would be well to "let well enough alone." The proposition of Brother Andrews is simply one by which we might hold property, while it leaves the matter of church organization out. It seems to me it is impossible to organize a church without compromising that principle of Christianity that we are called unto liberty. ... As I understand, a church built upon the foundation of prophets and apostles, Christ being the corner-stone, is such that when a man comes into Christ, he is, by virtue of that relation, a member of that body, and a portion of that church.— Id., pages 169, 170.
Replying to certain objections that were raised, Elder James White made the following remarks with reference to the importance of adopting a denominational name: —
To be sure we should be obliged to have a name; and I must say, dear brethren, that I hope we shall decide upon what name we shall have; what we wish to be called by. I meet with friends very often who ask me what the name of our people is; and it is quite an embarrassing position to be in, not to be able to give any. We give our children names when they become a few weeks or a few months old. When we commenced to labor in this work, when the cause was young and individuals who had embraced it few, we did not see the necessity of any such steps. But it seems to me that the child is now so grown that it is exceedingly awkward to have no name for it.— Id., page 170.
Elder M. E. Cornell urged that a name be chosen. He said : —
To do this, we must be known by some name. Is there any scripture to show that it is wrong to have a name? Are the churches Babylon because they have names? I doubt it. I can not see the force of the objections that have been brought up against legal organization. I am glad to see the true issue now coming up. When a necessity exists, it should be met if we can do this and not go contrary to Scripture.— Id., page 171.
As the delegates could not agree upon the motion submitted by T. J. Butler, it was withdrawn, and the following resolution was presented by Elder J. N. Loughborough:—
Resolved, That this conference recommend to such churches as already have church buildings, or intend to have them, so to organize as to hold their church property or church buildings legally.—Id., page 171.
This resolution did not receive the approval of the entire Council, but after being discussed at considerable length it was carried by a majority of the votes cast. As soon as this resolution was adopted, a committee, consisting of J. N. Andrews, J. H. Waggoner, and T. J. Butler, was appointed to prepare business for the afternoon meeting. This committee presented the following report: —
Your committee would present as the next business the subject of general organization. By this we mean an organization to hold the publishing property of the church…
[The committee presented a recommendation for how to go about legally organizing the publishing property, which was approved without any changes. The Council then appointed a committee to proceed with implementing the plan.]
…This committee subsequently learned that it could not effect the organization in the manner designated by the Council, and at a general meeting held in Battle Creek, April 27, 1861, requested to be discharged. The request was granted, and another committee … was appointed to effect an organization according to the Michigan Act. See REVIEW AND HERALD, Vol. XVII, page 189.
On May 3, 1861, this committee incorporated the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, and on May 23 a meeting of this association was held to adopt the by-laws, and to elect the officers. This completed the first step in organization in the history of our cause.
#8
In tracing the proceedings of the Council held in Battle Creek the latter part of September, 1860, in the interests of denominational organization, we have shown that an agreement was reached that the churches should be advised to organize, that a legal corporation should be organized to hold the Review Office and manage its affairs, and that a committee was appointed to form the corporation, and to act as the first trustees.
This having been done, the next step to be taken was to choose a name by which we as a people should be known. The report of the proceedings of this council as printed in the REVIEW AND HERALD tells just how this was done. This is the original report of those proceedings, and, so far as I know, it has never been reprinted since it appeared in the REVIEW in 1860. Believing that thousands of our people will at this time be interested to know just how the name we bear was suggested, discussed, and agreed upon, I shall venture to give the full report just as it was prepared for publication by Uriah Smith, the secretary of the conference.
It should be understood that there had existed a great deal of confusion and prejudice in the minds of our people regarding the use of a church or denominational name. The first, and strongest, and most oft-repeated objection to the proposal in behalf of organization was that this would lead to the taking of a name. The fear and prejudice of many at that time is revealed by a letter written by a brother to the editor of the REVIEW, requesting that his paper be discontinued, and giving the following as his reason : —
Brother White has taken such a position about organizing churches, and also of making us a name, that I see no consistency in his former position. I do not wish to point out his former position, for all the brethren know what that was. I must say that a good many in this church have lost a great deal of interest in reading the REVIEW, as well as myself.— Review and Herald, Vol. XVI, page 148.
It will be remembered that the Council had adopted Elder Loughborough's resolution advising church organization. It appears that after this was done, and after adopting plans for organizing an association to hold the Review and Herald property and manage the affairs of the Office, there still lingered in the minds of some of the brethren at the Council so much fear and uncertainty regarding the advisability of what was being done, that it was agreed to rescind the vote recommending the organization of churches. It was at this point in the proceedings of the Council that the discussion began regarding the name that should be chosen. The report of this discussion reads as follows: —
Brother [J. H.] Waggoner: “I have a matter of business as I stated last evening to bring before the conference. The vote of recommendation adopted by yesterday morning's session was not unanimous; I therefore move that it be rescinded." Carried.
Brother [E.] Brackett: “I now move that we adopt a name, as we must have a name if we are to organize so as to hold property legally." Seconded.
Brother [E. A.] Poole: "The reason I should have against the adoption of a general name by the body is, that our influence would be hurt as a people; and our object would be likely to be to advance our denomination among the denominations, and not to advance the cause of truth."
Brother [J. B.] Frisbie: “I have been opposed to a sectarian name; but to having a variety of names among us, I am equally opposed. There seems to be a necessity for a uniformity."
Brother [Moses] Hull: “If we could have the churches designated by their locality I should like it better, or, as the church worshiping on the seventh day in such and such places."
Brother [James] White: "This is a point in which I am extremely interested. I do not see how we can get along without some name. If we do not take one, we shall have a variety applied to us. And it is not possible for us to hold property without a name. The law specifies upon this point. As to being reckoned a part of Babylon, I have preached considerable about Babylon, but never found any fault with them because they have a name. I see nothing unscriptural in their having a name. But it is objected that we shall be classed among the denominations. We are classed with them already, and I do not know that we can prevent it, unless we disband and scatter, and give up the thing altogether."
Brother [M. E.] Cornell: “There are three churches in Iowa, waiting to go forward immediately to build meetinghouses; but they are waiting the action of this conference. Something should be done; it is expected. When the brethren speak of our going into Babylon because of the name, it seems to me they lose sight of the aid and assistance that God has given us as a people. The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, is a distinguishing feature between us and the other denominations; and so sure as they are Babylon, and in the enemy's hand, the enemy will stir them up to war against us. It looks to me too that the gifts of the church are lost sight of, and are not held in so important a light as they should be, if we give way to so much fear of our becoming Babylon merely by adopting a name. There is confusion in the names already chosen; and if something is not done here, churches will go on choosing different names still. A general name will bring us into unity and not confusion."
Brother [T. J.] Butler: "The objections which formerly had weight upon my mind, do not now have the weight they had. I think they may be surmounted. What do we profess to be here? Is it not a fact that we profess to be, and are striving to be, that lively material that the apostle speaks of, striving to be built up a holy temple, etc.? This being the fact, what does the Lord himself, the great Framer and Deviser of this building, declare it to be? This same building is declared to be the church of God. If God has named us as parents have a right to name their children, does it not denote a lack of modesty to try to slip out and take no name, or another?"
The discussion on this subject was prolonged till eleven o'clock, when it was voted to adjourn one hour.
Meeting opened by prayer by Brother White and the Chairman. The question was again brought before the meeting, "Shall we adopt some name?" Some who had previously been averse to such a step, here signified their change of opinion, and their readiness to co-operate with their brethren in this course.
Brother [C. W.] Sperry: "It looks to me that it is perfectly right and pleasing to the Lord, if we are not in harmony on this subject, to talk the matter over in the Spirit of the Lord. I have this confidence in the Spirit of the Lord that it will lead us into the same mind and judgment. And these brethren who can see the matter clearly, are prepared to enlighten us who can not see it so plainly. I believe that when we touch the right thing, and move in harmony with the Spirit of God, his blessing will follow our action. My mind was enlightened somewhat this forenoon in regard to it. My prejudices have been great; but in order to get light, I wish to lay my prejudices on the subject on the altar. I hope we shall not be hasty in the matter, but help each other on these points as we did last night. I believe God will give wisdom. I understand that at some time God's people will have a name; for John saw them having their Father's name on their foreheads."
Brother [S. T.] Belden: "Going without a name, would, in my opinion, be like publishing books without titles, or sending out a paper without a heading."
Brother White followed with remarks apologizing for some of his brethren who seemed to be afraid of a name. He had been in the same position once. In times past when we were comparatively few, he did not see the necessity of any such steps. But now large bodies of intelligent brethren are being raised up, and without some regulation of this kind will be thrown into confusion. He then gave a review of the past, mentioning the opposition which had been manifested by some all the way along, first against publishing a paper, then against issuing pamphlets, then against having an office, then against the sale of publications, then against church order, then against having a power press. It had been hard to bring the minds of some of the brethren to the necessity of these things; but they had all been essential to the prosperity of the cause. He thought the opposition to the steps proposed of the same nature precisely.
The question, "Shall we adopt a name?" was then called for. The motion was put and carried. None dissented, though a few declined to vote.
Brother Ingraham remarked that though he did not feel perfectly clear, he was so far inclined to the position taken, that if compelled to vote, he should vote in favor of a name.
Having voted to adopt a name, the discussion now turned on what that name should be. The name Church of God was proposed and zealously advocated by some. It was objected that that name was already in use by some denominations, and on this account, was indefinite, besides having to the world an appearance of presumption. Brother White remarked that the name taken should be one which would be the least objectionable to the world at large. The name Seventh-day Adventists, was proposed as a simple name, and one expressive of our faith and position. After some further remarks, Brother Hewitt offered the following resolution: —
Resolved, That we take the name of Seventh-day Adventists.
This resolution was freely discussed, but was finally withdrawn to make room for the following from Brother Poole: —
Resolved, That we call ourselves Seventh-day Adventists.
After a somewhat lengthy discussion, the question was called for and the resolution adopted, Brother Butler dissenting, and Brethren Lawrence, Sperry, Andrews, and Ingraham not voting. On explanation that this resolution had reference only to those present, Brother Sperry gave his vote in favor of the resolution, and Brother Andrews signified his assent to the same.
Moved, by Brother Hull, that we recommend the name we have chosen to the churches generally. Carried, Brother Butler dissenting.— Review and Herald, Vol. XVII, pages 178, 179.
This decision settled the question that had troubled the leaders for a long time; namely, whether or not this people should be designated by some name, and if so, what that name should be. The name selected — Seventh-day Adventists — seems to have been made, coined, or invented during the Council. This is the first time it appears to have been used by any of our people. It can not be found in any of our papers nor other literature previous to the publication of the report of these proceedings. From the minutes, it would seem that Elder James White suggested the name.
The spirit of prophecy bears this testimony in behalf of our name which was chosen as described above: —
I was shown in regard to the remnant people of God taking a name. . . . No name which we can take will be appropriate but that which accords with our profession and expresses our faith and marks us a peculiar people. . . . The name Seventh-day Adventist carries the true features of our faith in front, and will convict the inquiring mind. Like an arrow from the Lord's quiver, it will wound the transgressors of God's law, and will lead to repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. — "Testimonies for the Church," Vol. I, pages 223, 224, first published in 1861.
Next: Reactions to the Council
#7
In an editorial relating to the General Council held in Battle Creek to consider the question of organization, the editor of the REVIEW said: —
We were gratified to see quite a full representation of preachers from different parts. Among these were Brethren M. Hull and M. E. Cornell from Iowa; Wm. S. Ingraham from Wisconsin; Joseph Bates, J. H. Waggoner, James White, J. N. Loughborough, J. B. Frisbie, R. J. Lawrence, and J. L. Edgar, from Michigan; T. J. Butler and G. W. Holt, from Ohio; E. A, Poole, from New York; and also J. N. Andrews and C. W. Sperry from their labors in that State the past summer.
Many brethren met for the first time at this meeting, whose cordial salutations and beaming countenances bespoke their joy at meeting, their union of heart and their love for the truth. As the hour arrived for religious exercises at the commencement of the Sabbath, the house was densely filled with the brethren and sisters who had come up from different States to this happy gathering to wait upon the Lord and receive his promises. — Review and Herald, Vol. XVI, page 156, Oct. 2, 1860.
The official report of the business proceedings of this Council was printed in three consecutive numbers of the REVIEW, and, altogether, fills twenty-five pages of the paper. The first meeting of the Council was held Sept. 29, 1860. Elder Joseph Bates was elected chairman, and Uriah Smith secretary.
After the delegates had expressed their views in a general way regarding organization, Elder T. J. Butler, from Ohio, made the following motion: —
I will propose, Mr. Chairman, through you to this conference, that we organize upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone; and that we call ourselves the Church of God. The foundation is a sure one; it has got God's seal upon it; and such a building he will inhabit by his Spirit. We propose the organization of Eph. 2:20. — Id., page 169.
This is the first definite proposal for organization and the adoption of a church or denominational name ever made in the general councils of our people. Although this resolution was not adopted by the Council, it helped to focus the discussion of the question, and called out some very interesting and pointed statements for and against organization. Elder E. A. Poole, from New York, said: —
I hardly know how to get out what I would like to say upon this subject. It is a subject on which I have felt and thought much. It is a subject in which is involved very important consequences. The way the cause has been managed seems to have been blessed of God; and if it could go on so still, and those who have conducted it felt free to still act as they have acted, it seems to me it would be well to "let well enough alone." The proposition of Brother Andrews is simply one by which we might hold property, while it leaves the matter of church organization out. It seems to me it is impossible to organize a church without compromising that principle of Christianity that we are called unto liberty. ... As I understand, a church built upon the foundation of prophets and apostles, Christ being the corner-stone, is such that when a man comes into Christ, he is, by virtue of that relation, a member of that body, and a portion of that church.— Id., pages 169, 170.
Replying to certain objections that were raised, Elder James White made the following remarks with reference to the importance of adopting a denominational name: —
To be sure we should be obliged to have a name; and I must say, dear brethren, that I hope we shall decide upon what name we shall have; what we wish to be called by. I meet with friends very often who ask me what the name of our people is; and it is quite an embarrassing position to be in, not to be able to give any. We give our children names when they become a few weeks or a few months old. When we commenced to labor in this work, when the cause was young and individuals who had embraced it few, we did not see the necessity of any such steps. But it seems to me that the child is now so grown that it is exceedingly awkward to have no name for it.— Id., page 170.
Elder M. E. Cornell urged that a name be chosen. He said : —
To do this, we must be known by some name. Is there any scripture to show that it is wrong to have a name? Are the churches Babylon because they have names? I doubt it. I can not see the force of the objections that have been brought up against legal organization. I am glad to see the true issue now coming up. When a necessity exists, it should be met if we can do this and not go contrary to Scripture.— Id., page 171.
As the delegates could not agree upon the motion submitted by T. J. Butler, it was withdrawn, and the following resolution was presented by Elder J. N. Loughborough:—
Resolved, That this conference recommend to such churches as already have church buildings, or intend to have them, so to organize as to hold their church property or church buildings legally.—Id., page 171.
This resolution did not receive the approval of the entire Council, but after being discussed at considerable length it was carried by a majority of the votes cast. As soon as this resolution was adopted, a committee, consisting of J. N. Andrews, J. H. Waggoner, and T. J. Butler, was appointed to prepare business for the afternoon meeting. This committee presented the following report: —
Your committee would present as the next business the subject of general organization. By this we mean an organization to hold the publishing property of the church…
[The committee presented a recommendation for how to go about legally organizing the publishing property, which was approved without any changes. The Council then appointed a committee to proceed with implementing the plan.]
…This committee subsequently learned that it could not effect the organization in the manner designated by the Council, and at a general meeting held in Battle Creek, April 27, 1861, requested to be discharged. The request was granted, and another committee … was appointed to effect an organization according to the Michigan Act. See REVIEW AND HERALD, Vol. XVII, page 189.
On May 3, 1861, this committee incorporated the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, and on May 23 a meeting of this association was held to adopt the by-laws, and to elect the officers. This completed the first step in organization in the history of our cause.
#8
In tracing the proceedings of the Council held in Battle Creek the latter part of September, 1860, in the interests of denominational organization, we have shown that an agreement was reached that the churches should be advised to organize, that a legal corporation should be organized to hold the Review Office and manage its affairs, and that a committee was appointed to form the corporation, and to act as the first trustees.
This having been done, the next step to be taken was to choose a name by which we as a people should be known. The report of the proceedings of this council as printed in the REVIEW AND HERALD tells just how this was done. This is the original report of those proceedings, and, so far as I know, it has never been reprinted since it appeared in the REVIEW in 1860. Believing that thousands of our people will at this time be interested to know just how the name we bear was suggested, discussed, and agreed upon, I shall venture to give the full report just as it was prepared for publication by Uriah Smith, the secretary of the conference.
It should be understood that there had existed a great deal of confusion and prejudice in the minds of our people regarding the use of a church or denominational name. The first, and strongest, and most oft-repeated objection to the proposal in behalf of organization was that this would lead to the taking of a name. The fear and prejudice of many at that time is revealed by a letter written by a brother to the editor of the REVIEW, requesting that his paper be discontinued, and giving the following as his reason : —
Brother White has taken such a position about organizing churches, and also of making us a name, that I see no consistency in his former position. I do not wish to point out his former position, for all the brethren know what that was. I must say that a good many in this church have lost a great deal of interest in reading the REVIEW, as well as myself.— Review and Herald, Vol. XVI, page 148.
It will be remembered that the Council had adopted Elder Loughborough's resolution advising church organization. It appears that after this was done, and after adopting plans for organizing an association to hold the Review and Herald property and manage the affairs of the Office, there still lingered in the minds of some of the brethren at the Council so much fear and uncertainty regarding the advisability of what was being done, that it was agreed to rescind the vote recommending the organization of churches. It was at this point in the proceedings of the Council that the discussion began regarding the name that should be chosen. The report of this discussion reads as follows: —
Brother [J. H.] Waggoner: “I have a matter of business as I stated last evening to bring before the conference. The vote of recommendation adopted by yesterday morning's session was not unanimous; I therefore move that it be rescinded." Carried.
Brother [E.] Brackett: “I now move that we adopt a name, as we must have a name if we are to organize so as to hold property legally." Seconded.
Brother [E. A.] Poole: "The reason I should have against the adoption of a general name by the body is, that our influence would be hurt as a people; and our object would be likely to be to advance our denomination among the denominations, and not to advance the cause of truth."
Brother [J. B.] Frisbie: “I have been opposed to a sectarian name; but to having a variety of names among us, I am equally opposed. There seems to be a necessity for a uniformity."
Brother [Moses] Hull: “If we could have the churches designated by their locality I should like it better, or, as the church worshiping on the seventh day in such and such places."
Brother [James] White: "This is a point in which I am extremely interested. I do not see how we can get along without some name. If we do not take one, we shall have a variety applied to us. And it is not possible for us to hold property without a name. The law specifies upon this point. As to being reckoned a part of Babylon, I have preached considerable about Babylon, but never found any fault with them because they have a name. I see nothing unscriptural in their having a name. But it is objected that we shall be classed among the denominations. We are classed with them already, and I do not know that we can prevent it, unless we disband and scatter, and give up the thing altogether."
Brother [M. E.] Cornell: “There are three churches in Iowa, waiting to go forward immediately to build meetinghouses; but they are waiting the action of this conference. Something should be done; it is expected. When the brethren speak of our going into Babylon because of the name, it seems to me they lose sight of the aid and assistance that God has given us as a people. The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, is a distinguishing feature between us and the other denominations; and so sure as they are Babylon, and in the enemy's hand, the enemy will stir them up to war against us. It looks to me too that the gifts of the church are lost sight of, and are not held in so important a light as they should be, if we give way to so much fear of our becoming Babylon merely by adopting a name. There is confusion in the names already chosen; and if something is not done here, churches will go on choosing different names still. A general name will bring us into unity and not confusion."
Brother [T. J.] Butler: "The objections which formerly had weight upon my mind, do not now have the weight they had. I think they may be surmounted. What do we profess to be here? Is it not a fact that we profess to be, and are striving to be, that lively material that the apostle speaks of, striving to be built up a holy temple, etc.? This being the fact, what does the Lord himself, the great Framer and Deviser of this building, declare it to be? This same building is declared to be the church of God. If God has named us as parents have a right to name their children, does it not denote a lack of modesty to try to slip out and take no name, or another?"
The discussion on this subject was prolonged till eleven o'clock, when it was voted to adjourn one hour.
Meeting opened by prayer by Brother White and the Chairman. The question was again brought before the meeting, "Shall we adopt some name?" Some who had previously been averse to such a step, here signified their change of opinion, and their readiness to co-operate with their brethren in this course.
Brother [C. W.] Sperry: "It looks to me that it is perfectly right and pleasing to the Lord, if we are not in harmony on this subject, to talk the matter over in the Spirit of the Lord. I have this confidence in the Spirit of the Lord that it will lead us into the same mind and judgment. And these brethren who can see the matter clearly, are prepared to enlighten us who can not see it so plainly. I believe that when we touch the right thing, and move in harmony with the Spirit of God, his blessing will follow our action. My mind was enlightened somewhat this forenoon in regard to it. My prejudices have been great; but in order to get light, I wish to lay my prejudices on the subject on the altar. I hope we shall not be hasty in the matter, but help each other on these points as we did last night. I believe God will give wisdom. I understand that at some time God's people will have a name; for John saw them having their Father's name on their foreheads."
Brother [S. T.] Belden: "Going without a name, would, in my opinion, be like publishing books without titles, or sending out a paper without a heading."
Brother White followed with remarks apologizing for some of his brethren who seemed to be afraid of a name. He had been in the same position once. In times past when we were comparatively few, he did not see the necessity of any such steps. But now large bodies of intelligent brethren are being raised up, and without some regulation of this kind will be thrown into confusion. He then gave a review of the past, mentioning the opposition which had been manifested by some all the way along, first against publishing a paper, then against issuing pamphlets, then against having an office, then against the sale of publications, then against church order, then against having a power press. It had been hard to bring the minds of some of the brethren to the necessity of these things; but they had all been essential to the prosperity of the cause. He thought the opposition to the steps proposed of the same nature precisely.
The question, "Shall we adopt a name?" was then called for. The motion was put and carried. None dissented, though a few declined to vote.
Brother Ingraham remarked that though he did not feel perfectly clear, he was so far inclined to the position taken, that if compelled to vote, he should vote in favor of a name.
Having voted to adopt a name, the discussion now turned on what that name should be. The name Church of God was proposed and zealously advocated by some. It was objected that that name was already in use by some denominations, and on this account, was indefinite, besides having to the world an appearance of presumption. Brother White remarked that the name taken should be one which would be the least objectionable to the world at large. The name Seventh-day Adventists, was proposed as a simple name, and one expressive of our faith and position. After some further remarks, Brother Hewitt offered the following resolution: —
Resolved, That we take the name of Seventh-day Adventists.
This resolution was freely discussed, but was finally withdrawn to make room for the following from Brother Poole: —
Resolved, That we call ourselves Seventh-day Adventists.
After a somewhat lengthy discussion, the question was called for and the resolution adopted, Brother Butler dissenting, and Brethren Lawrence, Sperry, Andrews, and Ingraham not voting. On explanation that this resolution had reference only to those present, Brother Sperry gave his vote in favor of the resolution, and Brother Andrews signified his assent to the same.
Moved, by Brother Hull, that we recommend the name we have chosen to the churches generally. Carried, Brother Butler dissenting.— Review and Herald, Vol. XVII, pages 178, 179.
This decision settled the question that had troubled the leaders for a long time; namely, whether or not this people should be designated by some name, and if so, what that name should be. The name selected — Seventh-day Adventists — seems to have been made, coined, or invented during the Council. This is the first time it appears to have been used by any of our people. It can not be found in any of our papers nor other literature previous to the publication of the report of these proceedings. From the minutes, it would seem that Elder James White suggested the name.
The spirit of prophecy bears this testimony in behalf of our name which was chosen as described above: —
I was shown in regard to the remnant people of God taking a name. . . . No name which we can take will be appropriate but that which accords with our profession and expresses our faith and marks us a peculiar people. . . . The name Seventh-day Adventist carries the true features of our faith in front, and will convict the inquiring mind. Like an arrow from the Lord's quiver, it will wound the transgressors of God's law, and will lead to repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. — "Testimonies for the Church," Vol. I, pages 223, 224, first published in 1861.
Next: Reactions to the Council
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 31
Note: These selections from the Spirit of Prophesy were written during the period in Adventist history currently under discussion in Our Roots.
"The Lord has shown that gospel order has been too much feared and neglected. Formality should be shunned; but, in so doing, order should not be neglected. There is order in heaven. There was order in the church when Christ was upon the earth, and after His departure order was strictly observed among His apostles. And now in these last days, while God is bringing His children into the unity of the faith, there is more real need of order than ever before; for, as God unites His children, Satan and his evil angels are very busy to prevent this unity and to destroy it. Therefore men are hurried into the field who lack wisdom and judgment, perhaps not ruling well their own house, and not having order or government over the few that God has given them charge of at home; yet they feel capable of having charge of the flock. They make many wrong moves, and those unacquainted with our faith judge all the messengers to be like these self-sent men. Thus the cause of God is reproached, and the truth shunned by many unbelievers who would otherwise be candid and anxiously inquire, Are these things so?
"Men whose lives are not holy and who are unqualified to teach the present truth enter the field without being acknowledged by the church or the brethren generally, and confusion and disunion are the result. Some have a theory of the truth, and can present the argument, but lack spirituality, judgment, and experience; they fail in many things which it is very necessary for them to understand before they can teach the truth. Others have not the argument, but because a few brethren hear them pray well and give an exciting exhortation now and then, they are pressed into the field, to engage in a work for which God has not qualified them and for which they have not sufficient experience and judgment. Spiritual pride comes in, they are lifted up, and act under the deception of thinking that they are laborers. They do not know themselves. They lack sound judgment and patient reasoning, talk boastingly of themselves, and assert many things which they cannot prove from the Word. God knows this; therefore He does not call such to labor in these perilous times, and brethren should be careful not to push those out into the field whom He has not called" (Early Writings, pp.97, 98).
"These self-sent messengers are a curse to the cause. Honest souls put confidence in them... But when light comes, as it surely will, and they are aware that these men are not what they understood them to be, God's called and chosen messengers, they are thrown into trial and doubt as to the truth they have received...
"Those who receive the truth and are brought into such trials would have had the truth the same if these men had stayed away and filled the humble place the Lord designed for them. God's eye was upon His jewels, and He would have directed to them His called and chosen messengers--men who would have moved understandingly. The light of truth would have shown and discovered to these souls their true position, and they would have received the truth understandingly and been satisfied with its beauty and clearness. And as they felt its powerful effects, they would have been strong and shed a holy influence.
"Again the danger of those traveling whom God has not called, was shown me. If they do have some success, the qualifications that are lacking will be felt. Injudicious moves will be made, and by a lack of wisdom some precious souls may be driven where they can never be reached. I saw that the church should feel their responsibility and should look carefully and attentively at the lives, qualifications, and general course of those who profess to be teachers. If unmistakable evidence is not given that God has called them, and that the 'woe' is upon them if they heed not this call, it is the duty of the church to act and let it be known that these persons are not acknowledged as teachers by the church. This is the only course the church can take in order to be clear in this matter, for the burden lies upon them" (Early Writings, pp.99, 100).
"The Lord has shown that gospel order has been too much feared and neglected. Formality should be shunned; but, in so doing, order should not be neglected. There is order in heaven. There was order in the church when Christ was upon the earth, and after His departure order was strictly observed among His apostles. And now in these last days, while God is bringing His children into the unity of the faith, there is more real need of order than ever before; for, as God unites His children, Satan and his evil angels are very busy to prevent this unity and to destroy it. Therefore men are hurried into the field who lack wisdom and judgment, perhaps not ruling well their own house, and not having order or government over the few that God has given them charge of at home; yet they feel capable of having charge of the flock. They make many wrong moves, and those unacquainted with our faith judge all the messengers to be like these self-sent men. Thus the cause of God is reproached, and the truth shunned by many unbelievers who would otherwise be candid and anxiously inquire, Are these things so?
"Men whose lives are not holy and who are unqualified to teach the present truth enter the field without being acknowledged by the church or the brethren generally, and confusion and disunion are the result. Some have a theory of the truth, and can present the argument, but lack spirituality, judgment, and experience; they fail in many things which it is very necessary for them to understand before they can teach the truth. Others have not the argument, but because a few brethren hear them pray well and give an exciting exhortation now and then, they are pressed into the field, to engage in a work for which God has not qualified them and for which they have not sufficient experience and judgment. Spiritual pride comes in, they are lifted up, and act under the deception of thinking that they are laborers. They do not know themselves. They lack sound judgment and patient reasoning, talk boastingly of themselves, and assert many things which they cannot prove from the Word. God knows this; therefore He does not call such to labor in these perilous times, and brethren should be careful not to push those out into the field whom He has not called" (Early Writings, pp.97, 98).
"These self-sent messengers are a curse to the cause. Honest souls put confidence in them... But when light comes, as it surely will, and they are aware that these men are not what they understood them to be, God's called and chosen messengers, they are thrown into trial and doubt as to the truth they have received...
"Those who receive the truth and are brought into such trials would have had the truth the same if these men had stayed away and filled the humble place the Lord designed for them. God's eye was upon His jewels, and He would have directed to them His called and chosen messengers--men who would have moved understandingly. The light of truth would have shown and discovered to these souls their true position, and they would have received the truth understandingly and been satisfied with its beauty and clearness. And as they felt its powerful effects, they would have been strong and shed a holy influence.
"Again the danger of those traveling whom God has not called, was shown me. If they do have some success, the qualifications that are lacking will be felt. Injudicious moves will be made, and by a lack of wisdom some precious souls may be driven where they can never be reached. I saw that the church should feel their responsibility and should look carefully and attentively at the lives, qualifications, and general course of those who profess to be teachers. If unmistakable evidence is not given that God has called them, and that the 'woe' is upon them if they heed not this call, it is the duty of the church to act and let it be known that these persons are not acknowledged as teachers by the church. This is the only course the church can take in order to be clear in this matter, for the burden lies upon them" (Early Writings, pp.99, 100).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)