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