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