Organization—No. 14 (Review and Herald, May 9, 1907)
In our brief study of the development of organization in connection with the cause of the third angel's message, we have traced its history from 1844 to the organization of the General Conference in 1863. It may be well for us at this point briefly to note the most important facts we have found in our study. These may be summarized as follows: —
1. Organization, as applied to the church or to gospel work, had no place in the great movement connected with the first angel's message.
2. Near the close of that movement in 1844 the course pursued by the popular churches led many connected with the first angel's message to conclude that the churches were Babylon, that all church organization was a part of Babylon, and was therefore wrong.
3. The confusion, division, and scattering that followed the great disappointment in 1844 led the leaders in the proclamation of the first angel's message to see the need of organization, and to make an attempt to organize the believers. But their efforts failed. They were never able to make the matter clear to them, and to bring them together.
4. Out of the great and grand movement created by the first angel's message, and the disintegration that followed the disappointment, there grew the greater movement created by the third angel's message.
5. Owing to the small beginning of this latter movement, and the entire absence of facilities, no thought was at first given to the question of organization.
6. As this cause grew and extended in different directions, it became apparent to some of its leaders that some sort of organization was absolutely necessary in order to secure the order, system, and intelligent co-operation required to make the work a success.
7. This conviction led Elder James White to publish, in the REVIEW of Feb. 23, 1860, a proposal in behalf of some simple form of organization for the cause.
8. This proposal alarmed the majority of our people, because they believed that anything approaching organization would result in spiritual declension and unscriptural alliance with the world.
9. The alarm created by the call for organization quickly developed into an opposition which proved difficult to overcome.
10. This opposition was not arrogantly silenced by those who favored organization. It was dealt with fairly. The whole question of organization was given careful, extended investigation and discussion.
11. As a result of the thorough discussion of the subject, the majority of the believers became convinced that organization was a necessary arrangement given by the Lord for the welfare of his cause.
12. When the conviction became general that organization was necessary for the welfare of the cause, councils were held for the purpose of effecting a proper and complete system of organization for this many-sided, world-wide movement.
13. Representatives from all parts of the field occupied at that time attended these councils, and joined in working out the plans for the organization and management of the affairs of churches, conferences, and institutions.
14. Although there was a decided difference of opinion at the beginning of the controversy regarding the wisdom of having any organization, there was almost universal agreement at the end, both as to the need of organization and the forms it should take to meet the varied needs of the cause.
15. The general plan or system of organization adopted by the pioneers at the completion of their work of organization in 1863 has never been changed in any material feature by their successors.
16. In this long, anxious struggle for an efficient system of organization in full harmony with gospel order and organization as set forth in the Scriptures, the spirit of prophecy exercised a guiding, molding influence.
17. Through the gift of the spirit of prophecy as exercised in this church, God placed the seal of his approval upon the system of organization then established and still maintained.
Forty-four years of trial have proved the efficiency of the system agreed upon by our brethren in 1863. Writing of this a few years ago, Sister White said: —
What is the secret of our prosperity? We have moved under the order of the Captain of our salvation. God has blessed our united efforts. The truth has spread and flourished. Institutions have multiplied. The mustard seed has grown to a great tree. The system of organization has proved a grand success. Systematic benevolence was entered into according to the Bible plan. The body "has been compacted by that which every joint supplieth." As we have advanced, our system of organization has still proved effectual.
An arrangement that has proved such a blessing to our cause should not be thoughtlessly cast aside.
Next: The 1860s - Health and Business
Friday, February 25, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 16
Organization —No. 13 (Review and Herald, April 25, 1907)
While arrangements were being made for the general council to be held May 20, 1863, Elder White published a statement of the purpose of the council, in which he said: —
A few weeks only, and our General Conference will be in session. Delegates are being appointed to this assembly from different States, and our people are looking forward to it as the most important meeting ever held by the Seventh-day Adventists.
The great object of this contemplated meeting, as far as it has been expressed by those who plead that the present state of the cause demands it, is to secure the united and systematic action of the friends of the cause in every part of the wide field. ...
We call for system. And while ministers call for systematic benevolence; let the people loudly call for systematic labor. Can the General Conference take this matter in hand? If not, what use have we for the General Conference? Again, should not the General Conference control all missionary labor in new fields? If so, would it not control missionary funds, and require, among other officers, a treasurer and board of directors? Every such organization should be as simple as possible and accomplish its design. Useless machinery of this kind is badly in the way. But that which is worth doing at all, should be done correctly and well. If the General Conference is not higher in authority than State conferences, we see but little use for it. Think of these things, brethren, and be ready to act when assembled in General Conference.— Review and Herald, Vol. XXI, page 172.
Believing that our conference officers, ministers, and many of our people will be interested in the proceedings of the council which report the organization of the General Conference, I shall give them as they were published at the time: —
Report of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists convened according to appointment at Battle Creek, Mich., May 20. at 6 P. M. The meeting was temporarily organized by choosing J. M. Aldrich chairman, and U. Smith secretary. The conference was then opened by singing the hymn on page 233, and prayer by Brother Snook. A committee to receive and judge of the credentials of delegates being called for, it was —
Voted, That we have a committee of three on credentials.
The following brethren were thereupon chosen as that committee: Elder J. N. Loughborough, of Michigan; C. O. Taylor, of New York; and Isaac Sanborn, of Wisconsin.
The remainder of this session was occupied in the presentation of credentials to the committee, and the meeting adjourned to the following morning, May 21 at nine o'clock.
In the morning session, the committee announced the following brethren as the duly elected delegates from their respective States: From New York, Brethren J. N. Andrews, N. Fuller, C. O. Taylor, and J. M. Aldrich; from Ohio, I. N. VanGorder; from Michigan, the ministers present from that State, namely, Brethren White, Bates, Waggoner, Byington, Loughborough, Hull, Cornell, and Lawrence, with a lay representation of Brethren James Harvey, of North Liberty, Ind., and Wm. S. Higley, Jr., of Lapeer, Mich.; from Wisconsin, Isaac Sanborn; from Iowa, Brethren B. F. Snook and W. H. Brinkerhoof; from Minnesota, Washington Morse.
The report of the committee was accepted.
Voted, That Brother H. F. Baker be received as an additional delegate from Ohio.
The following brethren were then appointed a committee to draft a constitution and by-laws for the government of this conference: Brethren J. N. Andrews, N. Fuller, I. Sanborn, W. Morse, H. F. Baker, B. F. Snook, J. H. Waggoner, and J. N. Loughborough. After due deliberation the committee presented the following constitution for the consideration of the Conference: —
Constitution of the General Conference
For the purpose of securing unity and efficiency in labor, and promoting the general interests of the cause of present truth, and of perfecting the organization of the Seventh-day Adventists, we the delegates from the several State conferences, hereby proceed to organize a General Conference, and adopt the following constitution for the government thereof: —
ARTICLE I.— This Conference shall be called the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
ART. II.— The officers of this Conference shall be a President, Secretary, Treasurer, and an Executive Committee of three, of whom the President shall be one.
ART. III.— The duties of the President and Secretary shall be such respectively as usually pertain to those offices.
ART. IV.— It shall be the duty of the Treasurer to receive and disburse means under the direction of the Executive Committee, and keep an account of the same, and make a full report thereof to the regular meetings of the Conference.
ART. V., SEC. 1. — It shall be the duty of the Executive Committee to take the general supervision of all ministerial labor, and see that the same is properly distributed; and they shall take the special supervision of all missionary labor, and as a missionary board shall have the power to decide where such labor is needed, and who shall go as missionaries to perform the same.
SEC. 2.— Means for missionary operations may be received by donation from State conferences, churches, or individuals; and the Committee are authorized to call for means when needed.
SEC. 3.— When any State conference desires ministerial labor from a minister not a resident within the bounds of such conference, their request shall be made to the General Conference Executive Committee, and ministers sent by said Committee shall be considered under the jurisdiction of the conference committee of such State: Provided, 1. That if such minister consider the State committee inefficient, or their action so far wrong as to render his labor ineffectual, he may appeal to the General Conference Executive Committee: Provided, 2. That if such State committee consider such minister inefficient, they may appeal to the General Conference Committee, who shall decide on the matter of complaint, and take such action as they may think proper.
ART. VI.— Each State conference shall be entitled to one delegate in the General Conference, and one additional delegate for every twenty delegates in the State conference, such delegates to the General Conference to be chosen by the State conferences or their committees : Provided, that the delegates to such State conferences be elected according to the following ratio, to wit.: Each church to the number of twenty members or under, shall be entitled to one delegate, and one delegate for every additional fifteen members.
ART. VII.—The officers shall hold their offices for the term of one year, and shall be elected at the regular meetings of the Conference.
ART. VIII., SEC. 1.—The regular meetings of the Conference shall be held annually, and the time and place of holding the same shall be determined by the Executive Committee, by whom due notice thereof shall be given through the REVIEW.
SEC. 2.— Special meetings may be called at the option of the Committee.
ART. IX.— This constitution may be altered or amended by a two-third's vote of the delegates present at any regular meeting: Provided, That any proposed amendment shall be communicated to the Executive Committee, and notice thereof given by them in their call for the meeting of the Conference.
The report was accepted and the committee discharged.
The Conference then took up the reported constitution item by item, for consideration and discussion, which resulted in its entire adoption.
The Conference being now ready for a permanent organization, it was —
Voted, That a committee of three be appointed to nominate officers to act under the constitution already adopted.
Brethren Wm. S. Higley, Jas. Harvey, and B. F. Snook were appointed as that committee.
Adjourned to one o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.— Prayer by Brother Cornell. The committee on nominations reported as follows: For President, James White; Secretary, Uriah Smith; Treasurer, E. S. Walker.
Executive Committee: James White, John Byington, J. N. Loughborough.
Report accepted and committee discharged.
On motion the Conference proceeded to vote on the nominations presented. Brother White was unanimously chosen president, but declined to serve. After a considerable time spent in discussion, the brethren urging reasons why he should accept the position, and he why he should not, his resignation was finally accepted, and Elder John Byington was elected as president in his stead. The nominations for secretary and treasurer were then ratified. J. N. Andrews and G. W. Amadon were chosen as the remaining members of the executive committee. On motion of Brother Loughborough it was —
Voted, That, as one object of the General Conference is to secure uniformity of action throughout all the States, a committee of five be appointed to draw up a constitution for State conferences, to be recommended to the brethren in the different States, that there may be uniformity in the matter of State conferences. The following brethren were then chosen as that committee: Brethren Sanborn, of Wisconsin; Brinkerhoof, of Iowa; Aldrich, of New York; Loughborough, of Michigan; and Morse, of Minnesota.— Id., Vol. XXI, pages 204, 205.
The committee on a constitution for local conferences presented one that was unanimously adopted by the council, and was subsequently used by the States.
This ended the long, perplexing, harassing controversy among Seventh-day Adventists regarding organization. Writing of this meeting, Elder Uriah Smith said: —
Taking a general view of this meeting as a religious gathering, we hardly know what feature of the joyful occasion to notice first. We can say to the readers of the REVIEW, Think of everything good that has been written of every previous meeting, and apply it to this. All this would be true, and more than this. Perhaps no previous meeting that we have ever enjoyed, was characterized by such unity of feeling and harmony of sentiment. In all the important steps taken at this Conference, in the organization of a General Conference, and the further perfecting of State conferences, defining the authority of each, and the important duties belonging to their various officers, there was not a dissenting voice, and we may reasonably doubt if there was even a dissenting thought. Such union, on such points, affords the strongest grounds of hope for the immediate advancement of the cause, and its future glorious prosperity and triumph.— Id., Vol. XXI, page 204.
It will be interesting to study the general principles upon which this plan of organization is based, and the influence this system of organization has had upon our cause.
Next: The Path So Far
While arrangements were being made for the general council to be held May 20, 1863, Elder White published a statement of the purpose of the council, in which he said: —
A few weeks only, and our General Conference will be in session. Delegates are being appointed to this assembly from different States, and our people are looking forward to it as the most important meeting ever held by the Seventh-day Adventists.
The great object of this contemplated meeting, as far as it has been expressed by those who plead that the present state of the cause demands it, is to secure the united and systematic action of the friends of the cause in every part of the wide field. ...
We call for system. And while ministers call for systematic benevolence; let the people loudly call for systematic labor. Can the General Conference take this matter in hand? If not, what use have we for the General Conference? Again, should not the General Conference control all missionary labor in new fields? If so, would it not control missionary funds, and require, among other officers, a treasurer and board of directors? Every such organization should be as simple as possible and accomplish its design. Useless machinery of this kind is badly in the way. But that which is worth doing at all, should be done correctly and well. If the General Conference is not higher in authority than State conferences, we see but little use for it. Think of these things, brethren, and be ready to act when assembled in General Conference.— Review and Herald, Vol. XXI, page 172.
Believing that our conference officers, ministers, and many of our people will be interested in the proceedings of the council which report the organization of the General Conference, I shall give them as they were published at the time: —
Report of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists convened according to appointment at Battle Creek, Mich., May 20. at 6 P. M. The meeting was temporarily organized by choosing J. M. Aldrich chairman, and U. Smith secretary. The conference was then opened by singing the hymn on page 233, and prayer by Brother Snook. A committee to receive and judge of the credentials of delegates being called for, it was —
Voted, That we have a committee of three on credentials.
The following brethren were thereupon chosen as that committee: Elder J. N. Loughborough, of Michigan; C. O. Taylor, of New York; and Isaac Sanborn, of Wisconsin.
The remainder of this session was occupied in the presentation of credentials to the committee, and the meeting adjourned to the following morning, May 21 at nine o'clock.
In the morning session, the committee announced the following brethren as the duly elected delegates from their respective States: From New York, Brethren J. N. Andrews, N. Fuller, C. O. Taylor, and J. M. Aldrich; from Ohio, I. N. VanGorder; from Michigan, the ministers present from that State, namely, Brethren White, Bates, Waggoner, Byington, Loughborough, Hull, Cornell, and Lawrence, with a lay representation of Brethren James Harvey, of North Liberty, Ind., and Wm. S. Higley, Jr., of Lapeer, Mich.; from Wisconsin, Isaac Sanborn; from Iowa, Brethren B. F. Snook and W. H. Brinkerhoof; from Minnesota, Washington Morse.
The report of the committee was accepted.
Voted, That Brother H. F. Baker be received as an additional delegate from Ohio.
The following brethren were then appointed a committee to draft a constitution and by-laws for the government of this conference: Brethren J. N. Andrews, N. Fuller, I. Sanborn, W. Morse, H. F. Baker, B. F. Snook, J. H. Waggoner, and J. N. Loughborough. After due deliberation the committee presented the following constitution for the consideration of the Conference: —
Constitution of the General Conference
For the purpose of securing unity and efficiency in labor, and promoting the general interests of the cause of present truth, and of perfecting the organization of the Seventh-day Adventists, we the delegates from the several State conferences, hereby proceed to organize a General Conference, and adopt the following constitution for the government thereof: —
ARTICLE I.— This Conference shall be called the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
ART. II.— The officers of this Conference shall be a President, Secretary, Treasurer, and an Executive Committee of three, of whom the President shall be one.
ART. III.— The duties of the President and Secretary shall be such respectively as usually pertain to those offices.
ART. IV.— It shall be the duty of the Treasurer to receive and disburse means under the direction of the Executive Committee, and keep an account of the same, and make a full report thereof to the regular meetings of the Conference.
ART. V., SEC. 1. — It shall be the duty of the Executive Committee to take the general supervision of all ministerial labor, and see that the same is properly distributed; and they shall take the special supervision of all missionary labor, and as a missionary board shall have the power to decide where such labor is needed, and who shall go as missionaries to perform the same.
SEC. 2.— Means for missionary operations may be received by donation from State conferences, churches, or individuals; and the Committee are authorized to call for means when needed.
SEC. 3.— When any State conference desires ministerial labor from a minister not a resident within the bounds of such conference, their request shall be made to the General Conference Executive Committee, and ministers sent by said Committee shall be considered under the jurisdiction of the conference committee of such State: Provided, 1. That if such minister consider the State committee inefficient, or their action so far wrong as to render his labor ineffectual, he may appeal to the General Conference Executive Committee: Provided, 2. That if such State committee consider such minister inefficient, they may appeal to the General Conference Committee, who shall decide on the matter of complaint, and take such action as they may think proper.
ART. VI.— Each State conference shall be entitled to one delegate in the General Conference, and one additional delegate for every twenty delegates in the State conference, such delegates to the General Conference to be chosen by the State conferences or their committees : Provided, that the delegates to such State conferences be elected according to the following ratio, to wit.: Each church to the number of twenty members or under, shall be entitled to one delegate, and one delegate for every additional fifteen members.
ART. VII.—The officers shall hold their offices for the term of one year, and shall be elected at the regular meetings of the Conference.
ART. VIII., SEC. 1.—The regular meetings of the Conference shall be held annually, and the time and place of holding the same shall be determined by the Executive Committee, by whom due notice thereof shall be given through the REVIEW.
SEC. 2.— Special meetings may be called at the option of the Committee.
ART. IX.— This constitution may be altered or amended by a two-third's vote of the delegates present at any regular meeting: Provided, That any proposed amendment shall be communicated to the Executive Committee, and notice thereof given by them in their call for the meeting of the Conference.
The report was accepted and the committee discharged.
The Conference then took up the reported constitution item by item, for consideration and discussion, which resulted in its entire adoption.
The Conference being now ready for a permanent organization, it was —
Voted, That a committee of three be appointed to nominate officers to act under the constitution already adopted.
Brethren Wm. S. Higley, Jas. Harvey, and B. F. Snook were appointed as that committee.
Adjourned to one o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.— Prayer by Brother Cornell. The committee on nominations reported as follows: For President, James White; Secretary, Uriah Smith; Treasurer, E. S. Walker.
Executive Committee: James White, John Byington, J. N. Loughborough.
Report accepted and committee discharged.
On motion the Conference proceeded to vote on the nominations presented. Brother White was unanimously chosen president, but declined to serve. After a considerable time spent in discussion, the brethren urging reasons why he should accept the position, and he why he should not, his resignation was finally accepted, and Elder John Byington was elected as president in his stead. The nominations for secretary and treasurer were then ratified. J. N. Andrews and G. W. Amadon were chosen as the remaining members of the executive committee. On motion of Brother Loughborough it was —
Voted, That, as one object of the General Conference is to secure uniformity of action throughout all the States, a committee of five be appointed to draw up a constitution for State conferences, to be recommended to the brethren in the different States, that there may be uniformity in the matter of State conferences. The following brethren were then chosen as that committee: Brethren Sanborn, of Wisconsin; Brinkerhoof, of Iowa; Aldrich, of New York; Loughborough, of Michigan; and Morse, of Minnesota.— Id., Vol. XXI, pages 204, 205.
The committee on a constitution for local conferences presented one that was unanimously adopted by the council, and was subsequently used by the States.
This ended the long, perplexing, harassing controversy among Seventh-day Adventists regarding organization. Writing of this meeting, Elder Uriah Smith said: —
Taking a general view of this meeting as a religious gathering, we hardly know what feature of the joyful occasion to notice first. We can say to the readers of the REVIEW, Think of everything good that has been written of every previous meeting, and apply it to this. All this would be true, and more than this. Perhaps no previous meeting that we have ever enjoyed, was characterized by such unity of feeling and harmony of sentiment. In all the important steps taken at this Conference, in the organization of a General Conference, and the further perfecting of State conferences, defining the authority of each, and the important duties belonging to their various officers, there was not a dissenting voice, and we may reasonably doubt if there was even a dissenting thought. Such union, on such points, affords the strongest grounds of hope for the immediate advancement of the cause, and its future glorious prosperity and triumph.— Id., Vol. XXI, page 204.
It will be interesting to study the general principles upon which this plan of organization is based, and the influence this system of organization has had upon our cause.
Next: The Path So Far
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
The Epic, Pt. 83
“Administrative authority in a conference originates with its constituency. The churches of a conference elect delegates to the conference session to represent them in the councils of the conference. The conference session elects conference personnel…and transacts other business. One of its most important acts is the election of the executive committee, which functions for the constituency between sessions. In this committee is vested the delegated power and authority of all the churches of the conference” (Church Manual, p.83*).
The sort of conference gathering described above is usually referred to as a “constituency meeting.” The Potomac Conference was due to have such a meeting on September 26, 2010 so Takoma Park, like all other Potomac Conference churches, went about selecting delegates in preparation for it. Unfortunately, this selection process was not conducted as it should have been.
“When the time comes to select delegates, the pastor, or the head elder in cooperation with the pastor, brings the matter before the church. A committee may be appointed to nominate delegates, or the board may be asked to nominate them…
“When the committee or board has completed its work, it reports its nominees to the church. The church then votes on the nominations. No church officer is a delegate ex officio” (Church Manual, p.83).
Contrary to these explicit instructions the matter of needing to choose delegates was never brought before the congregation (either in a business meeting or on Sabbath morning) by the pastor or head elder. The actual selection process was undertaken by Pastor DeSilva—rather than the board or a specially designated committee—without any mandate from the congregation to do so. When Pastor DeSilva had assembled his list he presented it to the church board during their March 2010 meeting and they approved it. That was the end of the process so far as Takoma Park was concerned. The nominations were never submitted to the congregation for final approval.
*Church Manual page numbers are taken from the "Session Minutes Version" of the 18th edition of the Manual currently available on www.adventist.org. These numbers are subject to change when the final print version of the 18th edition is released.
Next: Constituency Meeting
Religious
The sort of conference gathering described above is usually referred to as a “constituency meeting.” The Potomac Conference was due to have such a meeting on September 26, 2010 so Takoma Park, like all other Potomac Conference churches, went about selecting delegates in preparation for it. Unfortunately, this selection process was not conducted as it should have been.
“When the time comes to select delegates, the pastor, or the head elder in cooperation with the pastor, brings the matter before the church. A committee may be appointed to nominate delegates, or the board may be asked to nominate them…
“When the committee or board has completed its work, it reports its nominees to the church. The church then votes on the nominations. No church officer is a delegate ex officio” (Church Manual, p.83).
Contrary to these explicit instructions the matter of needing to choose delegates was never brought before the congregation (either in a business meeting or on Sabbath morning) by the pastor or head elder. The actual selection process was undertaken by Pastor DeSilva—rather than the board or a specially designated committee—without any mandate from the congregation to do so. When Pastor DeSilva had assembled his list he presented it to the church board during their March 2010 meeting and they approved it. That was the end of the process so far as Takoma Park was concerned. The nominations were never submitted to the congregation for final approval.
*Church Manual page numbers are taken from the "Session Minutes Version" of the 18th edition of the Manual currently available on www.adventist.org. These numbers are subject to change when the final print version of the 18th edition is released.
Next: Constituency Meeting
Religious
Friday, February 11, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 15
Organization—No. 12 (Review and Herald, April 18, 1907)
It will be of interest to learn how the steps taken by the brethren at the fall council of 1861 toward organization affected our people. The first published expression came from Brother Dexter Daniells, who wrote as follows : —
I want to say that I fully approve of the doings of the Battle Creek Conference upon the subject of organization. Although it startled me a little at first, after a moment's reflection all was settled in my mind, because there can be no kingdom or church on the earth that can exist without organization. Without organization any kingdom or church must go to pieces. If God is the leader of this people, there will be order; for there will be order in God's house. God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. I Cor. 14:33. . . . This work of order is not of the enemy. No, no! He would be glad to have it broken up; for he is a disorganizer; he loves confusion; and if he can not make us stumble at the holy law, he will try to make us stumble at the organization of this house, or at something else. He is on the lookout for all the weak and feeble ones. But I would say to all the fearful ones, Come, let us go up of our own free-will and help build the house of the Lord. This voice sounds to me like the voice of the Good Shepherd. This will shut out all impostors. I rejoice in this house of order.
I was at the Wilbraham Second Advent camp-meeting one year ago this fall, and there I saw a sample of the no-organization system. Such confusion of sentiment I never witnessed before. No two agreeing, it was contention all over the camp. It was Babylon truly. We have been so much afraid of Babylon that Satan will try to make us believe that anything like order is Babylon. I think that I have learned something of his devices in my experience, and I will try to profit by it.— Review and Herald, Vol. XVIII, page 194.
This statement was followed by one from Brother Meyers. He wrote: —
We were at first startled by the proposition of a legal organization, and until we plainly saw its necessity, we looked upon the subject with suspicion and dread. But after it was set before us, its object and necessity clearly set forth, we dropped our objections, and came to look upon the subject with favor, and as a necessary movement for the advancement of the truth. We have seen enough of no-law, no-order, and no-responsibility.—Id., page 205.
Elder J. N. Andrews sent this encouraging statement to the REVIEW : —
I trust that the work of organization will be completed by establishing State conferences, where they do not now exist, and general conferences that shall represent the whole body of the brethren. In this way we can act with efficiency; but otherwise we shall be thrown into confusion every time that concert of action is especially necessary. The work of organization, wherever it has been entered into in a proper manner, has borne good fruit; and hence I desire to see it completed in such a manner as shall secure its full benefit, not only to each church, but to the whole body of the brethren and to the cause of truth, so dear to all.— Id., Vol. XX, page 52.
Writing from the State of New York, Elder R. F. Cottrell said: —
We need a State conference organized in this State. Shall we have it? Who will respond? I believe the cause is impeded in its progress for want of it. It should be attended to without any unnecessary delay. We invite ministers to come and labor in the State. Whose business is it to see that their wants are supplied? — In the present state of things it is every one's, and consequently no one's. He may keep accounts; but there is no one to audit them. He may be ready to report and give an account of his labors and his stewardship, but he has no one to whom to report. I have labored a number of years as a minister, and no one has ever known, but myself, how much I have received any given year or years, and consequently whether I have had more or less than I needed — whether I have been economical, or have squandered the Lord's money. These things ought not so to be, and the sooner we reform, the better. In our present state, we are not prepared for the great work which is before us.—Id., page 165.
Elder S. N. Haskell supported organization as follows: —
I long for the time when there will be such a complete state of organization that every gift in the church will stand in its proper place, and its influence be felt in favor of the truth. ... If we wish to see the message go with power, souls coming into the truth, and the loud cry be given, we should stand in the place where God can work through us. We must away with doubts and fears in relation to organization, and the gifts that we already have, and press together, if we ever expect to see prosperity. — Id., Vol. XXI, page 14.
While these articles of approval in behalf of organization were passing through the REVIEW, the ministers and brethren generally were busy in various States organizing churches and conferences. Iowa, Minnesota, New York, and Vermont led the way, giving organization a great impetus. So great was the change of sentiment following the organization of the Michigan Conference in October, 1862, that within six months a general council was called to meet in Battle Creek, May 20, 1863, to consider the advisability of organizing a General Conference.
In giving reasons why a general council should be convened and a General Conference be organized, Elder White made the following observations : —
The Michigan Conference, whether assembled or through its committee, will not think it advisable to bestow labor in a field where there is not enough of the element of order and organization to secure the future prosperity of the cause. As a people we have too long worked at the miserable disadvantage of having the injudicious, inexperienced, self-sufficient workers tear down what the more experienced and judicious labor to build up. ... In Michigan all are trying to help each other build, and we are loath to labor where the chances of having our work torn down are nine out of ten.
If our friends in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut think themselves qualified to manage the cause, and choose to suffer inexperienced men, who are comparative strangers, to lead off, they probably will not be disturbed in their opinions. If the sad experience in the past, connected with men whose names we forbear to mention, is not enough to satisfy them of the folly of every man's running an independent train of his own, then let them have more of this kind of experience, but not at the expense of those who wish to labor where united brethren understandingly help each other to build up the cause.
If the General Conference should appoint men to labor in those portions of the Eastern States where there is no organization, to take the oversight of the work there, to encourage those who should preach, and discourage those who should not, then we could hope that something permanent would be accomplished. But should it be decided that every man should labor where he pleases, and as he pleases, without reference to the labors and views of others, and that the REVIEW should be open to every man's appointments, opinion, and report, then the hope of the prosperity of the cause dies, and we wish to make a timely retreat from the scene of confusion. At present we utterly refuse to publish appointments and reports of the meetings and discussions of those who are not acknowledged as preachers by some organized body of Sabbath-keepers. As long as we have connection with it, we shall object to the REVIEW'S giving influence to self-called or untried ministers.— Id., page 116.
It was to relieve the cause of the many embarrassments and perplexities which were continually arising through lack of system and organization, that led the leaders to press the question of organization.
Next: Creating the General Conference
It will be of interest to learn how the steps taken by the brethren at the fall council of 1861 toward organization affected our people. The first published expression came from Brother Dexter Daniells, who wrote as follows : —
I want to say that I fully approve of the doings of the Battle Creek Conference upon the subject of organization. Although it startled me a little at first, after a moment's reflection all was settled in my mind, because there can be no kingdom or church on the earth that can exist without organization. Without organization any kingdom or church must go to pieces. If God is the leader of this people, there will be order; for there will be order in God's house. God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. I Cor. 14:33. . . . This work of order is not of the enemy. No, no! He would be glad to have it broken up; for he is a disorganizer; he loves confusion; and if he can not make us stumble at the holy law, he will try to make us stumble at the organization of this house, or at something else. He is on the lookout for all the weak and feeble ones. But I would say to all the fearful ones, Come, let us go up of our own free-will and help build the house of the Lord. This voice sounds to me like the voice of the Good Shepherd. This will shut out all impostors. I rejoice in this house of order.
I was at the Wilbraham Second Advent camp-meeting one year ago this fall, and there I saw a sample of the no-organization system. Such confusion of sentiment I never witnessed before. No two agreeing, it was contention all over the camp. It was Babylon truly. We have been so much afraid of Babylon that Satan will try to make us believe that anything like order is Babylon. I think that I have learned something of his devices in my experience, and I will try to profit by it.— Review and Herald, Vol. XVIII, page 194.
This statement was followed by one from Brother Meyers. He wrote: —
We were at first startled by the proposition of a legal organization, and until we plainly saw its necessity, we looked upon the subject with suspicion and dread. But after it was set before us, its object and necessity clearly set forth, we dropped our objections, and came to look upon the subject with favor, and as a necessary movement for the advancement of the truth. We have seen enough of no-law, no-order, and no-responsibility.—Id., page 205.
Elder J. N. Andrews sent this encouraging statement to the REVIEW : —
I trust that the work of organization will be completed by establishing State conferences, where they do not now exist, and general conferences that shall represent the whole body of the brethren. In this way we can act with efficiency; but otherwise we shall be thrown into confusion every time that concert of action is especially necessary. The work of organization, wherever it has been entered into in a proper manner, has borne good fruit; and hence I desire to see it completed in such a manner as shall secure its full benefit, not only to each church, but to the whole body of the brethren and to the cause of truth, so dear to all.— Id., Vol. XX, page 52.
Writing from the State of New York, Elder R. F. Cottrell said: —
We need a State conference organized in this State. Shall we have it? Who will respond? I believe the cause is impeded in its progress for want of it. It should be attended to without any unnecessary delay. We invite ministers to come and labor in the State. Whose business is it to see that their wants are supplied? — In the present state of things it is every one's, and consequently no one's. He may keep accounts; but there is no one to audit them. He may be ready to report and give an account of his labors and his stewardship, but he has no one to whom to report. I have labored a number of years as a minister, and no one has ever known, but myself, how much I have received any given year or years, and consequently whether I have had more or less than I needed — whether I have been economical, or have squandered the Lord's money. These things ought not so to be, and the sooner we reform, the better. In our present state, we are not prepared for the great work which is before us.—Id., page 165.
Elder S. N. Haskell supported organization as follows: —
I long for the time when there will be such a complete state of organization that every gift in the church will stand in its proper place, and its influence be felt in favor of the truth. ... If we wish to see the message go with power, souls coming into the truth, and the loud cry be given, we should stand in the place where God can work through us. We must away with doubts and fears in relation to organization, and the gifts that we already have, and press together, if we ever expect to see prosperity. — Id., Vol. XXI, page 14.
While these articles of approval in behalf of organization were passing through the REVIEW, the ministers and brethren generally were busy in various States organizing churches and conferences. Iowa, Minnesota, New York, and Vermont led the way, giving organization a great impetus. So great was the change of sentiment following the organization of the Michigan Conference in October, 1862, that within six months a general council was called to meet in Battle Creek, May 20, 1863, to consider the advisability of organizing a General Conference.
In giving reasons why a general council should be convened and a General Conference be organized, Elder White made the following observations : —
The Michigan Conference, whether assembled or through its committee, will not think it advisable to bestow labor in a field where there is not enough of the element of order and organization to secure the future prosperity of the cause. As a people we have too long worked at the miserable disadvantage of having the injudicious, inexperienced, self-sufficient workers tear down what the more experienced and judicious labor to build up. ... In Michigan all are trying to help each other build, and we are loath to labor where the chances of having our work torn down are nine out of ten.
If our friends in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut think themselves qualified to manage the cause, and choose to suffer inexperienced men, who are comparative strangers, to lead off, they probably will not be disturbed in their opinions. If the sad experience in the past, connected with men whose names we forbear to mention, is not enough to satisfy them of the folly of every man's running an independent train of his own, then let them have more of this kind of experience, but not at the expense of those who wish to labor where united brethren understandingly help each other to build up the cause.
If the General Conference should appoint men to labor in those portions of the Eastern States where there is no organization, to take the oversight of the work there, to encourage those who should preach, and discourage those who should not, then we could hope that something permanent would be accomplished. But should it be decided that every man should labor where he pleases, and as he pleases, without reference to the labors and views of others, and that the REVIEW should be open to every man's appointments, opinion, and report, then the hope of the prosperity of the cause dies, and we wish to make a timely retreat from the scene of confusion. At present we utterly refuse to publish appointments and reports of the meetings and discussions of those who are not acknowledged as preachers by some organized body of Sabbath-keepers. As long as we have connection with it, we shall object to the REVIEW'S giving influence to self-called or untried ministers.— Id., page 116.
It was to relieve the cause of the many embarrassments and perplexities which were continually arising through lack of system and organization, that led the leaders to press the question of organization.
Next: Creating the General Conference
Monday, February 7, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 14
The following is the address on the “Proper Manner of Organizing Churches” which was commissioned by the Council of October 5, 1861. It appeared in the Review and Herald on October 15, 1861.
Note: We have trimmed this article down in a few places where it goes into more detail than we think will prove interesting regarding the original Greek words designating the officers of the New Testament church. We have also reformatted the way in which Scripture references are cited. Their system was to list the chapter number as a Roman numeral and separate it from the verse number with a comma. For easier reading we have cited these verses as we are currently accustomed to seeing them, sans Roman numerals and with chapter and verse numbers separated by a colon. Just to be clear, these alterations to the original text are placed in [brackets].
Dear Brethren and Sisters: The subject of organization having been referred to us by the late general conference, with the request that we hold a Bible class thereon and address you through the review, we have accordingly had the subject under investigation, and submit the following thoughts for your consideration:
Of the necessity of church organization, at this late period in the discussion of this subject, it is unnecessary for us to speak. That division of the subject which has been especially referred to us, embraces the following points: 1. Manner of organizing a church; 2. Officers, and their duties; 3. The reception of members; and 4. Letters of commendation.
Where bodies of believers are brought out on the truth in new places, we would not recommend the immediate formation of a church. In such cases let a leader be appointed [this can perhaps best be done by the evangelist when he raises up the church], and let social meetings be continued till such time as the individuals become thoroughly acquainted with each other, and ascertain with whom they can have fellowship, and who are qualified for the important duties of officers of the church. As to the particular manner of organizing a church, when the proper time comes, we shall be allowed to avail ourselves of the experience of several ministers who have already adopted the following plan, and testify that it works well:
Let the minister request all those who propose to enter into church order, to stand upon their feet, till it as ascertained whether perfect fellowship exists among them. If it does not, let those between whom difficult lies, immediately retire and confer together in order to an understanding. If this cannot be arrived at, we know of no other way, but that the accused should remain outside, until the church is prepared to take action in his or her case. It having been ascertained who are prepared to enter into church fellowship, let their names be attached to the following church covenant:
We, the undersigned, hereby associate ourselves together, as a church, taking the name Seventh-day Adventists, covenanting to keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus Christ.
The members being thus enrolled, they are prepared for the election of
CHURCH OFFICERS
The following classes of rulers and officers of the Christian church, are brought to view in the New Testament: Apostles, Evangelists, Elders, Bishops, Pastors and Deacons. These we would divide into two great classes: Those who hold their office by virtue of an especial call from God, and those selected by the church: the former embracing apostles and evangelists; and the latter, elders, bishops, pastors and deacons.
I. Apostles. Apostle … signifies, one sent forth, a messenger. It is used to designate in a pre-eminent sense the twelve apostles sent out by Christ; but it cannot be confined to them nor to that age.
1. It cannot be confined to the twelve. Christ was called an apostle. [Heb. 3:1]. Paul and Barnabas were called apostles. [Acts 14:4, 14.] Titus and other brethren were called messengers (Greek, apostles). [2 Cor. 8:22, 23.] … Epaphroditus was called a messenger (Greek, apostle). [Phil. 2:25]. Here we have at least four apostles besides the twelve, all living in the same age with them; which shows that the idea of perpetuating just twelve apostles in the church, as the Mormons and Irvingites hold, is unscriptural and absurd.
2. They cannot be confined to the times covered by the New Testament record. First. The definition of the word apostle, being, one sent out, it follows that any one especially sent out of God in any age to proclaim his truth, is, in that sense, an apostle. We think it more especially applicable to those who are called of God to lead out in any new truth or reform; such, for instance, as Luther, Melancthon, Wesley and William Miller. Second. The Scriptures also show that apostles are to be perpetuated in the church. [Eph. 4:11-13.] “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come into the unity of the faith.” This testimony shows that the office of apostles runs co-extensive with that of pastors and teachers, and other spiritual gifts, and is to last till the church, the body of Christ, all come into the unity of the faith.
II. Evangelists. This term is …thus defined by Robinson: “Properly, a messenger of good tidings. In the New Testament, an evangelist, a preacher of the gospel, not fixed in any place, but traveling as a missionary to preach the gospel, and establish churches. See [Acts 21:8; Eph. 9:11; 2 Tim. 9:5].”
We come now to the second class, those appointed by the church, namely, elders, bishops, pastors and deacons.
1. Elders. This office is also expressed by the words, bishop, pastor, and overseer. To show that these are interchangeable terms for the same thing we refer, first to [Titus 1:5, 7]: “For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed thee: for a bishop must be blameless,” &c. The word elder in verse 5 …signifies, primarily, according to Robinson, an elder person, a senior; as an officer of the church it signifies the elders of Christian church, presbyters, to whom was committed the direction and government of individual churches… The term pastor …signifies literally a herdsman, a shepherd; specially a pastor, a teacher, a spiritual guide of a particular church. The definition of this term shows that it signifies the same office as [elder and bishop], a local office confined to a particular church.
2. Deacons. This term is …defined to signify primarily “a waiter, an attendant, a servant; usually derived from…one dusty and running. An officer in the primitive church, one who had charge of the alms and money of the church, an overseer of the sick and poor, an almoner. [Phil 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12; Acts 6:1-6]. Also of a female…who had charge of the female sick and poor. [Rom. 16:1].”
From what has been said, it will be seen that the officers of the church which are appointed solely by the church itself are reduced to two, namely, elders and deacons. From what then has arisen so much confusion upon this subject? It must be from the fact that the different names of elder, bishop, and pastor, are applied to the same office, and also from overlooking the principle that a person holding any one of the higher offices is qualified to officiate in any of the lower; and when performing the duties of such office is called by the title applying thereto. Thus Peter, though an apostle, calls himself an elder [1 Pet. 5:1]; and Paul, carrying the liberalities of the brethren up to Jerusalem [Acts 11:30], might with equal propriety be called a deacon. In [2 Cor. 8:4] he is spoken of as performing the office of a deacon. The brethren prayed him to take upon himself the fellowship of the ministering (…deaconship) to the saints; which he did. Verses 19, 20. Evangelists, also, are called elders. Paul says to Timothy, “Let the elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in word and doctrine.” [1 Tim. 5:17]. Here were some laboring in word and doctrine who are called elders; but such labor shows them to be evangelists, it being especially their work; hence evangelists are sometimes called elders; but only, of course, when acting in that capacity.
If this principle be correct, we may lay down the following general rule: That no person by virtue of a lower office can fill a higher one; but any one filling a higher office, can by virtue of that office, act in any of the lower. Thus, a deacon cannot by virtue of his deaconship, act as an elder, nor an elder as an evangelist, nor an evangelist as an apostle; but an apostle can act as an evangelist, elder or deacon; an evangelist, as an elder or deacon; and an elder as a deacon. We do not here speak of apostles and evangelists as officers of individual churches: for this is not the position they occupy: their calling making it necessary for them to move in a wider sphere; namely, to have, if apostles, the oversight of the churches, and if evangelists to labor to raise up churches in new fields. These, in our judgment, are the only officers qualified to organize churches.
We give it as the result of our examination of this subject that in the organization of a church, officers are to be supplied according to the necessities of the case. We understand the duties of a deacon to be confined exclusively to the temporal matters of the church; such, for instance, as taking charge of its finances, making preparation for the celebration of the ordinances, &c.; while it is the duty of the elder to take the lead and oversight of the church in spiritual things. This elder need not necessarily be a preacher, but may conduct the meetings of the church, and administer the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper in the absence of any higher officer. If an apostle or evangelist should be present, all these duties would be left with him.
Where a church is so small that the duties of both an elder and a deacon can be conveniently performed by the same individual, we see no necessity of having more than one officer. Let this one be an elder, who as we have already shown is qualified by virtue of his office to act also as a deacon. But if the church is so large that its temporal and spiritual wants cannot be attended to by one person, let one or more deacons be chosen to look after its temporal affairs, while the elder or elders confine themselves to its spiritual interests.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
When the names of the members are enrolled as specified in the former part of this article, let the minister read to them the scriptures setting forth the qualifications requisite to the officers of elder and deacon (these are described in [1 Tim. 3:1-10; Titus 1:6-9]); and then let the members select by informal ballot such person or persons as they may wish to take these positions in their midst. Then let the minister ordain them as in [Acts 6:6; Titus 1:5]. We need hardly suggest the necessity of every church keeping a record of all its proceedings. To this end a clerk will be necessary, who may be elected in the same manner. The elder of a church should act as a chairman in all its business meetings.
RECEPTION OF MEMBERS.
Let all candidates for admission into the church after its organization, be received by a unanimous vote of the church, unless the opposition to their admission comes from those who are at the time subjects of labor, or under the censure of the church.
LETTERS OF COMMENDATION.
That the churches in different places may not be imposed upon by false brethren coming into their midst, to whom they are strangers, it seems necessary that brethren moving from place to place, should carry letters of commendation from the church with which they were last connected. As a form of such letter of commendation we suggest the following:
This is to certify that _____ _____ is a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church of _____, in good standing, and one whom we can recommend to the brethren where his (or her) lot may be cast.
By order of the church at ______.
_____ _____, Church Clerk.
This step we regard as strictly in accordance with [Rom. 16:1; 2 Cor. 2].
All which is prayerfully submitted in behalf of the ministers of the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
J.N. Loughborough
Moses Hull
M.E. Cornell
Next: Creating State Conferences
Note: We have trimmed this article down in a few places where it goes into more detail than we think will prove interesting regarding the original Greek words designating the officers of the New Testament church. We have also reformatted the way in which Scripture references are cited. Their system was to list the chapter number as a Roman numeral and separate it from the verse number with a comma. For easier reading we have cited these verses as we are currently accustomed to seeing them, sans Roman numerals and with chapter and verse numbers separated by a colon. Just to be clear, these alterations to the original text are placed in [brackets].
Dear Brethren and Sisters: The subject of organization having been referred to us by the late general conference, with the request that we hold a Bible class thereon and address you through the review, we have accordingly had the subject under investigation, and submit the following thoughts for your consideration:
Of the necessity of church organization, at this late period in the discussion of this subject, it is unnecessary for us to speak. That division of the subject which has been especially referred to us, embraces the following points: 1. Manner of organizing a church; 2. Officers, and their duties; 3. The reception of members; and 4. Letters of commendation.
Where bodies of believers are brought out on the truth in new places, we would not recommend the immediate formation of a church. In such cases let a leader be appointed [this can perhaps best be done by the evangelist when he raises up the church], and let social meetings be continued till such time as the individuals become thoroughly acquainted with each other, and ascertain with whom they can have fellowship, and who are qualified for the important duties of officers of the church. As to the particular manner of organizing a church, when the proper time comes, we shall be allowed to avail ourselves of the experience of several ministers who have already adopted the following plan, and testify that it works well:
Let the minister request all those who propose to enter into church order, to stand upon their feet, till it as ascertained whether perfect fellowship exists among them. If it does not, let those between whom difficult lies, immediately retire and confer together in order to an understanding. If this cannot be arrived at, we know of no other way, but that the accused should remain outside, until the church is prepared to take action in his or her case. It having been ascertained who are prepared to enter into church fellowship, let their names be attached to the following church covenant:
We, the undersigned, hereby associate ourselves together, as a church, taking the name Seventh-day Adventists, covenanting to keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus Christ.
The members being thus enrolled, they are prepared for the election of
CHURCH OFFICERS
The following classes of rulers and officers of the Christian church, are brought to view in the New Testament: Apostles, Evangelists, Elders, Bishops, Pastors and Deacons. These we would divide into two great classes: Those who hold their office by virtue of an especial call from God, and those selected by the church: the former embracing apostles and evangelists; and the latter, elders, bishops, pastors and deacons.
I. Apostles. Apostle … signifies, one sent forth, a messenger. It is used to designate in a pre-eminent sense the twelve apostles sent out by Christ; but it cannot be confined to them nor to that age.
1. It cannot be confined to the twelve. Christ was called an apostle. [Heb. 3:1]. Paul and Barnabas were called apostles. [Acts 14:4, 14.] Titus and other brethren were called messengers (Greek, apostles). [2 Cor. 8:22, 23.] … Epaphroditus was called a messenger (Greek, apostle). [Phil. 2:25]. Here we have at least four apostles besides the twelve, all living in the same age with them; which shows that the idea of perpetuating just twelve apostles in the church, as the Mormons and Irvingites hold, is unscriptural and absurd.
2. They cannot be confined to the times covered by the New Testament record. First. The definition of the word apostle, being, one sent out, it follows that any one especially sent out of God in any age to proclaim his truth, is, in that sense, an apostle. We think it more especially applicable to those who are called of God to lead out in any new truth or reform; such, for instance, as Luther, Melancthon, Wesley and William Miller. Second. The Scriptures also show that apostles are to be perpetuated in the church. [Eph. 4:11-13.] “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come into the unity of the faith.” This testimony shows that the office of apostles runs co-extensive with that of pastors and teachers, and other spiritual gifts, and is to last till the church, the body of Christ, all come into the unity of the faith.
II. Evangelists. This term is …thus defined by Robinson: “Properly, a messenger of good tidings. In the New Testament, an evangelist, a preacher of the gospel, not fixed in any place, but traveling as a missionary to preach the gospel, and establish churches. See [Acts 21:8; Eph. 9:11; 2 Tim. 9:5].”
We come now to the second class, those appointed by the church, namely, elders, bishops, pastors and deacons.
1. Elders. This office is also expressed by the words, bishop, pastor, and overseer. To show that these are interchangeable terms for the same thing we refer, first to [Titus 1:5, 7]: “For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed thee: for a bishop must be blameless,” &c. The word elder in verse 5 …signifies, primarily, according to Robinson, an elder person, a senior; as an officer of the church it signifies the elders of Christian church, presbyters, to whom was committed the direction and government of individual churches… The term pastor …signifies literally a herdsman, a shepherd; specially a pastor, a teacher, a spiritual guide of a particular church. The definition of this term shows that it signifies the same office as [elder and bishop], a local office confined to a particular church.
2. Deacons. This term is …defined to signify primarily “a waiter, an attendant, a servant; usually derived from…one dusty and running. An officer in the primitive church, one who had charge of the alms and money of the church, an overseer of the sick and poor, an almoner. [Phil 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12; Acts 6:1-6]. Also of a female…who had charge of the female sick and poor. [Rom. 16:1].”
From what has been said, it will be seen that the officers of the church which are appointed solely by the church itself are reduced to two, namely, elders and deacons. From what then has arisen so much confusion upon this subject? It must be from the fact that the different names of elder, bishop, and pastor, are applied to the same office, and also from overlooking the principle that a person holding any one of the higher offices is qualified to officiate in any of the lower; and when performing the duties of such office is called by the title applying thereto. Thus Peter, though an apostle, calls himself an elder [1 Pet. 5:1]; and Paul, carrying the liberalities of the brethren up to Jerusalem [Acts 11:30], might with equal propriety be called a deacon. In [2 Cor. 8:4] he is spoken of as performing the office of a deacon. The brethren prayed him to take upon himself the fellowship of the ministering (…deaconship) to the saints; which he did. Verses 19, 20. Evangelists, also, are called elders. Paul says to Timothy, “Let the elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in word and doctrine.” [1 Tim. 5:17]. Here were some laboring in word and doctrine who are called elders; but such labor shows them to be evangelists, it being especially their work; hence evangelists are sometimes called elders; but only, of course, when acting in that capacity.
If this principle be correct, we may lay down the following general rule: That no person by virtue of a lower office can fill a higher one; but any one filling a higher office, can by virtue of that office, act in any of the lower. Thus, a deacon cannot by virtue of his deaconship, act as an elder, nor an elder as an evangelist, nor an evangelist as an apostle; but an apostle can act as an evangelist, elder or deacon; an evangelist, as an elder or deacon; and an elder as a deacon. We do not here speak of apostles and evangelists as officers of individual churches: for this is not the position they occupy: their calling making it necessary for them to move in a wider sphere; namely, to have, if apostles, the oversight of the churches, and if evangelists to labor to raise up churches in new fields. These, in our judgment, are the only officers qualified to organize churches.
We give it as the result of our examination of this subject that in the organization of a church, officers are to be supplied according to the necessities of the case. We understand the duties of a deacon to be confined exclusively to the temporal matters of the church; such, for instance, as taking charge of its finances, making preparation for the celebration of the ordinances, &c.; while it is the duty of the elder to take the lead and oversight of the church in spiritual things. This elder need not necessarily be a preacher, but may conduct the meetings of the church, and administer the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper in the absence of any higher officer. If an apostle or evangelist should be present, all these duties would be left with him.
Where a church is so small that the duties of both an elder and a deacon can be conveniently performed by the same individual, we see no necessity of having more than one officer. Let this one be an elder, who as we have already shown is qualified by virtue of his office to act also as a deacon. But if the church is so large that its temporal and spiritual wants cannot be attended to by one person, let one or more deacons be chosen to look after its temporal affairs, while the elder or elders confine themselves to its spiritual interests.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
When the names of the members are enrolled as specified in the former part of this article, let the minister read to them the scriptures setting forth the qualifications requisite to the officers of elder and deacon (these are described in [1 Tim. 3:1-10; Titus 1:6-9]); and then let the members select by informal ballot such person or persons as they may wish to take these positions in their midst. Then let the minister ordain them as in [Acts 6:6; Titus 1:5]. We need hardly suggest the necessity of every church keeping a record of all its proceedings. To this end a clerk will be necessary, who may be elected in the same manner. The elder of a church should act as a chairman in all its business meetings.
RECEPTION OF MEMBERS.
Let all candidates for admission into the church after its organization, be received by a unanimous vote of the church, unless the opposition to their admission comes from those who are at the time subjects of labor, or under the censure of the church.
LETTERS OF COMMENDATION.
That the churches in different places may not be imposed upon by false brethren coming into their midst, to whom they are strangers, it seems necessary that brethren moving from place to place, should carry letters of commendation from the church with which they were last connected. As a form of such letter of commendation we suggest the following:
This is to certify that _____ _____ is a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church of _____, in good standing, and one whom we can recommend to the brethren where his (or her) lot may be cast.
By order of the church at ______.
_____ _____, Church Clerk.
This step we regard as strictly in accordance with [Rom. 16:1; 2 Cor. 2].
All which is prayerfully submitted in behalf of the ministers of the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
J.N. Loughborough
Moses Hull
M.E. Cornell
Next: Creating State Conferences
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 13
Organization —No. 11 (Review and Herald, April 11, 1907)
The first message that came to our people through the spirit of prophecy regarding organization declared plainly that disorganization was Satan's method of distracting and tearing down that which God designed to build up, and that if our people would unite on God's plan of organization as they should, "separating bars would be broken into fragments," "hearts would flow together," and that "there would be power and strength in the ranks of Sabbath-keepers far exceeding anything" they had "yet witnessed."
This message closed the controversy with many. They believed that through this message God set the seal of his approval upon thorough organization among the remnant people. Elder J. N. Andrews, who had exercised great caution regarding a step that involved such far-reaching consequences, wrote as follows: —
I am sensible that I have not wisdom to propose a plan of action, and it has been my hope that the brethren chosen for this purpose at the last conference at Battle Creek would present through the REVIEW a well-matured plan for the action of the church. So far as I know, in this Western country the brethren are waiting for such a plan. For myself I would say that it is doubtless essential to the well-being of every church that they be set in order by the selection of such officers as the New Testament brings to view; and wherever meeting-houses are owned, that there such legal organization should exist as will enable the brethren to hold their places of worship. I am also decidedly in favor of concerted action, and hence would heartily approve of the regular monthly meetings of as many churches as can thus come together; and of State conferences to assemble annually or semiannually, that the united strength of the people of God may be brought to bear upon the work that is to be done. I have confidence to believe that this work is under the superintendence of the Most High, and that in answer to the united prayer of his people he will guide it in the right channel.— Review and Herald, Vol. XVIII, page 124.
This article was followed by one from Elder B. F. Snook, in which he said:—
That there is need of more strict and systematic organization, none who are alive to the interests and wants of the cause can deny. God's people, above all others, need the strictest organization. This, too, he has provided them with. Then why should we not avail ourselves of it? ... Good organization is an effectual shield against confusion, while disorganization is the very means which engenders it. Dear brethren, let us be a unit on this great and important question. It is one on which the success of the cause much depends; and it seems to me that an action in this direction should be made immediately. Then let us not stand back and throw all this burden upon Brother White, as we have done too much heretofore.— Id., page 132.
Elder Rufus Baker came to the front with the following counsel: —
The necessity of order in the church must be apparent to all who have given the subject an impartial investigation, from the fact that we have entered the perils of the last days, and are living in a time when Satan is trying with all his power to overthrow the message of the third angel, by bringing confusion and distraction among the people of God. . . .
Past experience also justifies us in this position; for it is a fact that those churches prosper best which have organized under the order of the New Testament. The fanatical spirit which arose in Wisconsin last winter, originated, and did its greatest work, among those who were opposed to order. If we may be permitted to learn from experience, it truly seems as if we should try to close this door of the enemy. Wisdom is justified of her children.
I sincerely hope that the time may soon come when the subject of organization will be more fully entered into, and carried out through all the various branches of the church of Christ. A stormy future is before us. Satan is mustering his forces for the great battle. Therefore we do well to prepare ourselves for the attack. I confidently believe that the Lord is stirring up his faithful children to the subject of more thorough organization.— Id., page 142.
Next came definite action. A council was called at Battle Creek, Oct. 5, 1861. The brethren who attended this council boldly launched both church and conference organization. In the published proceedings we find the following: —
1. The first business presented was the organization of churches. Brother Loughborough said: I consider it proper and necessary to consider here the organization of churches, as the subject has been agitated among us, especially for the last six months; and in order to bring the matter before the meeting, I move that we consider the proper manner of organizing churches. Seconded by Brother White. Carried. Brother White then presented the following resolution: —
Resolved, That this Conference recommend the following church covenant: We, the undersigned, hereby associate ourselves together as a church, taking the name Seventh-day Adventists, covenanting to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ. Seconded by Brother Hull. Adopted. . . .
2. The next question being in regard to the proper manner of organizing churches, after some remarks by different individuals, the following resolution was presented by Brother White: —
Resolved, That we refer this subject to the ministers present, instructing them to hold a Bible class on it, and write an address to the brethren, to be published in the REVIEW. Unanimously adopted.— Id., page 148.
The ministers to whom the second resolution referred the question of "the proper manner of organizing churches," immediately issued an address of instruction to the believers, on the following points: "First, manner of organizing a church; second, officers and their duties; third, the reception of members; and fourth, letters of commendation."
The resolutions given above were never rescinded. They, with the address on organization that followed, settled the question with this people as to whether they would organize themselves into churches. And they also clearly enunciated the principles underlying the New Testament church organization, and definitely outlined the form, methods of procedure, etc.
The Council of Oct. 15, 1861, did more than to settle the question of organizing the believers into churches; it settled the question of organizing the churches into conferences. Here is the record: —
3. Organization of Conferences: On this subject the following resolutions were presented by Brother White: —
Resolved, That we recommend to the churches in the State of Michigan to unite in one conference, with the name of The Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Adopted.
Resolved, That the conference be composed of ministers and delegates from the churches. Adopted.
By Brother Loughborough: —
Resolved, That the officers of this conference consist of a Chairman, Clerk, and a standing committee of three. Adopted.
Resolved, That our present Chairman and Clerk act as officers of this conference for the coming year. Adopted.
By Brother White: —
Resolved, That John N. Loughborough, Moses Hull, and M. E. Cornell be the Conference Committee. Adopted.
Resolved, That the first session of the Michigan State Conference of Seventh-day Adventists be held at Monterey, Mich., Oct. 5-8, 1862. Adopted.
4. Ministers' papers: On this subject the following was presented by Brother Cornell: —
Resolved, That our ministers' papers consist of a certificate of ordination, also credentials to be signed by the Chairman and Clerk of the conference, which credentials shall be renewed annually. Adopted.
By Brother Hull: —
Resolved, That this conference give credentials to the ministers of this State who are in good standing. Adopted.—Id., page 148.
This was the first conference ever organized by Seventh-day Adventists. As will be seen by a glance at the resolutions, they define the territory, name the organization, locate the source of responsibility, authority, and power of the organization, provide for the administrative officers, and arrange for the selection of its accredited ministers. The resolution which locates the source of the responsibility, authority, and power of the conference places it in the church, or, more properly, the people. This is directly the opposite of the organization of the papacy, which places these prerogatives in the officials.
Next: "The Proper Manner of Organizing Churches"
The first message that came to our people through the spirit of prophecy regarding organization declared plainly that disorganization was Satan's method of distracting and tearing down that which God designed to build up, and that if our people would unite on God's plan of organization as they should, "separating bars would be broken into fragments," "hearts would flow together," and that "there would be power and strength in the ranks of Sabbath-keepers far exceeding anything" they had "yet witnessed."
This message closed the controversy with many. They believed that through this message God set the seal of his approval upon thorough organization among the remnant people. Elder J. N. Andrews, who had exercised great caution regarding a step that involved such far-reaching consequences, wrote as follows: —
I am sensible that I have not wisdom to propose a plan of action, and it has been my hope that the brethren chosen for this purpose at the last conference at Battle Creek would present through the REVIEW a well-matured plan for the action of the church. So far as I know, in this Western country the brethren are waiting for such a plan. For myself I would say that it is doubtless essential to the well-being of every church that they be set in order by the selection of such officers as the New Testament brings to view; and wherever meeting-houses are owned, that there such legal organization should exist as will enable the brethren to hold their places of worship. I am also decidedly in favor of concerted action, and hence would heartily approve of the regular monthly meetings of as many churches as can thus come together; and of State conferences to assemble annually or semiannually, that the united strength of the people of God may be brought to bear upon the work that is to be done. I have confidence to believe that this work is under the superintendence of the Most High, and that in answer to the united prayer of his people he will guide it in the right channel.— Review and Herald, Vol. XVIII, page 124.
This article was followed by one from Elder B. F. Snook, in which he said:—
That there is need of more strict and systematic organization, none who are alive to the interests and wants of the cause can deny. God's people, above all others, need the strictest organization. This, too, he has provided them with. Then why should we not avail ourselves of it? ... Good organization is an effectual shield against confusion, while disorganization is the very means which engenders it. Dear brethren, let us be a unit on this great and important question. It is one on which the success of the cause much depends; and it seems to me that an action in this direction should be made immediately. Then let us not stand back and throw all this burden upon Brother White, as we have done too much heretofore.— Id., page 132.
Elder Rufus Baker came to the front with the following counsel: —
The necessity of order in the church must be apparent to all who have given the subject an impartial investigation, from the fact that we have entered the perils of the last days, and are living in a time when Satan is trying with all his power to overthrow the message of the third angel, by bringing confusion and distraction among the people of God. . . .
Past experience also justifies us in this position; for it is a fact that those churches prosper best which have organized under the order of the New Testament. The fanatical spirit which arose in Wisconsin last winter, originated, and did its greatest work, among those who were opposed to order. If we may be permitted to learn from experience, it truly seems as if we should try to close this door of the enemy. Wisdom is justified of her children.
I sincerely hope that the time may soon come when the subject of organization will be more fully entered into, and carried out through all the various branches of the church of Christ. A stormy future is before us. Satan is mustering his forces for the great battle. Therefore we do well to prepare ourselves for the attack. I confidently believe that the Lord is stirring up his faithful children to the subject of more thorough organization.— Id., page 142.
Next came definite action. A council was called at Battle Creek, Oct. 5, 1861. The brethren who attended this council boldly launched both church and conference organization. In the published proceedings we find the following: —
1. The first business presented was the organization of churches. Brother Loughborough said: I consider it proper and necessary to consider here the organization of churches, as the subject has been agitated among us, especially for the last six months; and in order to bring the matter before the meeting, I move that we consider the proper manner of organizing churches. Seconded by Brother White. Carried. Brother White then presented the following resolution: —
Resolved, That this Conference recommend the following church covenant: We, the undersigned, hereby associate ourselves together as a church, taking the name Seventh-day Adventists, covenanting to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ. Seconded by Brother Hull. Adopted. . . .
2. The next question being in regard to the proper manner of organizing churches, after some remarks by different individuals, the following resolution was presented by Brother White: —
Resolved, That we refer this subject to the ministers present, instructing them to hold a Bible class on it, and write an address to the brethren, to be published in the REVIEW. Unanimously adopted.— Id., page 148.
The ministers to whom the second resolution referred the question of "the proper manner of organizing churches," immediately issued an address of instruction to the believers, on the following points: "First, manner of organizing a church; second, officers and their duties; third, the reception of members; and fourth, letters of commendation."
The resolutions given above were never rescinded. They, with the address on organization that followed, settled the question with this people as to whether they would organize themselves into churches. And they also clearly enunciated the principles underlying the New Testament church organization, and definitely outlined the form, methods of procedure, etc.
The Council of Oct. 15, 1861, did more than to settle the question of organizing the believers into churches; it settled the question of organizing the churches into conferences. Here is the record: —
3. Organization of Conferences: On this subject the following resolutions were presented by Brother White: —
Resolved, That we recommend to the churches in the State of Michigan to unite in one conference, with the name of The Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Adopted.
Resolved, That the conference be composed of ministers and delegates from the churches. Adopted.
By Brother Loughborough: —
Resolved, That the officers of this conference consist of a Chairman, Clerk, and a standing committee of three. Adopted.
Resolved, That our present Chairman and Clerk act as officers of this conference for the coming year. Adopted.
By Brother White: —
Resolved, That John N. Loughborough, Moses Hull, and M. E. Cornell be the Conference Committee. Adopted.
Resolved, That the first session of the Michigan State Conference of Seventh-day Adventists be held at Monterey, Mich., Oct. 5-8, 1862. Adopted.
4. Ministers' papers: On this subject the following was presented by Brother Cornell: —
Resolved, That our ministers' papers consist of a certificate of ordination, also credentials to be signed by the Chairman and Clerk of the conference, which credentials shall be renewed annually. Adopted.
By Brother Hull: —
Resolved, That this conference give credentials to the ministers of this State who are in good standing. Adopted.—Id., page 148.
This was the first conference ever organized by Seventh-day Adventists. As will be seen by a glance at the resolutions, they define the territory, name the organization, locate the source of responsibility, authority, and power of the organization, provide for the administrative officers, and arrange for the selection of its accredited ministers. The resolution which locates the source of the responsibility, authority, and power of the conference places it in the church, or, more properly, the people. This is directly the opposite of the organization of the papacy, which places these prerogatives in the officials.
Next: "The Proper Manner of Organizing Churches"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)