The Lessons from Our Roots

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Roots, Pt. 9, when the first Council of the Advent believers took a vote to advise local churches to organize and later rescinded that vote because it had not passed unanimously.)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.