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