The person chosen by the 1888 General Conference Session to replace Butler as General Conference President was O. A. Olsen, who was living in Europe at the time. Since it would take him a while to relocate to the US to take up his new position W. C. “Willie” White (James’ and Ellen’s son) was chosen to fill the position in the interim. Willie White made use of the opportunity to initiate some changes that started the decentralization process his mother Ellen had been advocating for some time. These changes were approved of, and enlarged on, by the incoming president, O. A. Olsen.
On November 18, 1888, the General Conference Executive Committee divided the territory of the Church in North America into four districts; South, East, West, and Midwest. One member of the GC Executive Committee was assigned to each district to concentrate their administrative counsel in that area. This shifted some of the administrative emphasis within the General Conference from the president to the executive committee, but there was still centralization in that the power was still concentrated at the General Conference level. These districts had no autonomous decision making ability, no distinct voting constituencies, etc. You could say that they were a device of convenience for the General Conference.
In 1889 the system of districts was expanded. The territory of North America was rearranged into six districts, which were known by their numbers, and everything outside of North America was designated as district seven. They continued the system of assigning one executive committee member to oversee each district. The members of the executive committee responsible for these districts were known as their superintendents. This title was a bit misleading in that the superintendents didn’t have any individual executive authority over their districts. Their function within the districts was to advise and monitor and keep the executive committee as a whole apprised of developing issues or other matters. The executive committee as a whole would then exercise whatever executive authority was applied to a given situation.
While it did only a little toward decentralizing the power accumulated at the General Conference level the system of districts did prove useful in improving the lines of communication between the General Conference and the State Conferences, as each now knew who the go-to person was for sending information between the entities. The districts continued as reconfigured in 1889 until the General Conference Session of 1893.
Next: South Africa
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Hoarded Authority
Our Roots, Pt. 20 has introduced the topic of centralization vs. delegation; authority vs. autonomy. As the series progresses we will see how the Adventist Church has ranged from one end of this spectrum to the other and back again over the course of its history as it sought to achieve a balance between these priorities. It is an issue that has played a significant role in Takoma Park’s governance dispute, but exactly what that role has been is not so easy to discern as it might otherwise be because there has been a dissonance between the verbalized positions and the actual behaviors of the pastors of Takoma Park and the Potomac Conference leadership; more specifically, these leaders have said that they favor delegation and autonomy while their actions demonstrated authority and centralization.
The key nuance in this situation is that these leaders are increasing their power by claiming to favor the power of the people. Being at the lower end of the administrative structure, the more power our pastors and conference leaders can deny, ignore, or take from the higher levels of the administrative structure through lip service to the delegation/autonomy argument, the more they gather to themselves to make themselves local centralized authorities. Said another way, by telling the upper administration to back off this “local matter” they get a free hand to be more autocratic in their local activities. But they don’t stop there. Through selective acknowledgement of only convenient facts they have also managed to take power from the congregation by claiming to be supporting the congregation’s power.
When this nuance is recognized it reveals a carefully planned pattern of behavior where before there was an illogical contradiction between their words and actions. This recognition is key to formulating a coherent response to behavior like this. Otherwise you find yourself disagreeing with the behavior but finding the words with which you would object coming out of the mouths of those you disagree with—only twisted in a way you can’t put your finger on to make them seem to support the disagreeable behavior. Let’s look at a few examples of this in Takoma Park’s situation.
One of the earliest examples of authoritarian behavior on Pastor DeSilva’s part was deciding to reverse the business meeting decision to exclude the governance change from the vote on the Borden Report. Yet since that illegitimate vote he has consistently defended the governance change by saying, “The church voted it!” With this argument he is defending his refusal to let the congregation exercise its autonomous power in order to undo his autocratic action by claiming to be supporting that very autonomous power. Nuance at work.
Pastor DeSilva has all along disregarded the letters of advice written by General Conference personnel which told him he was wrong. Why? He claimed they had no right to interfere in our local business, at least not without going through him. By disputing the legitimacy of the letters he promoted his own power at the expense of the General Conference’s. Nuance at work.
Pastor DeSilva has pointed to the existence of the church board and accountability council as evidence that he is not being autocratic; after all, we have these lovely democratic governing bodies! This argument fails to take into account his manipulation of the election processes which resulted in staffing these bodies with yes-men, the systematic flaws of the accountability council which make unbiased decisions impossible, etc. This gives him the appearance of governance by the people while still being able to do what he wants. Nuance at work.
The Potomac Conference had no qualms about exercising influence over the Takoma Park Church by recommending the services of Paul Borden or by coming to Takoma Park to urge acceptance of the new governance structure when it was presented. Yet when the legitimacy of the new governance was questioned in the Group’s appeal to the conference they were suddenly unwilling to trample our congregational right to self-determination by giving a decisive answer. Their vagueness on that occasion allowed Pastor DeSilva to continue doing as he pleased. Nuance at work.
When the Potomac Conference urged acceptance of the altered governance they promised it could be reversed in three years if the congregation wasn’t satisfied. The conference promised to facilitate the exercise of the congregation’s autonomous authority—in order to exercise their own influence in the moment. The promise was later broken. Nuance at work.
So how can this pattern of behavior be stopped? First, recognize it. Second, point it out. Third, keep the attention on the leader’s actions and their results rather than their words. Their words will change more quickly than you can keep track, but they can’t hide their actions. We fully realize that this formula is easier to state than to implement. That’s because of the incredible subtlety of this pattern of behavior, the subtlety is why it is so effective, and its incredible effectiveness is why it absolutely must be addressed.
The key nuance in this situation is that these leaders are increasing their power by claiming to favor the power of the people. Being at the lower end of the administrative structure, the more power our pastors and conference leaders can deny, ignore, or take from the higher levels of the administrative structure through lip service to the delegation/autonomy argument, the more they gather to themselves to make themselves local centralized authorities. Said another way, by telling the upper administration to back off this “local matter” they get a free hand to be more autocratic in their local activities. But they don’t stop there. Through selective acknowledgement of only convenient facts they have also managed to take power from the congregation by claiming to be supporting the congregation’s power.
When this nuance is recognized it reveals a carefully planned pattern of behavior where before there was an illogical contradiction between their words and actions. This recognition is key to formulating a coherent response to behavior like this. Otherwise you find yourself disagreeing with the behavior but finding the words with which you would object coming out of the mouths of those you disagree with—only twisted in a way you can’t put your finger on to make them seem to support the disagreeable behavior. Let’s look at a few examples of this in Takoma Park’s situation.
One of the earliest examples of authoritarian behavior on Pastor DeSilva’s part was deciding to reverse the business meeting decision to exclude the governance change from the vote on the Borden Report. Yet since that illegitimate vote he has consistently defended the governance change by saying, “The church voted it!” With this argument he is defending his refusal to let the congregation exercise its autonomous power in order to undo his autocratic action by claiming to be supporting that very autonomous power. Nuance at work.
Pastor DeSilva has all along disregarded the letters of advice written by General Conference personnel which told him he was wrong. Why? He claimed they had no right to interfere in our local business, at least not without going through him. By disputing the legitimacy of the letters he promoted his own power at the expense of the General Conference’s. Nuance at work.
Pastor DeSilva has pointed to the existence of the church board and accountability council as evidence that he is not being autocratic; after all, we have these lovely democratic governing bodies! This argument fails to take into account his manipulation of the election processes which resulted in staffing these bodies with yes-men, the systematic flaws of the accountability council which make unbiased decisions impossible, etc. This gives him the appearance of governance by the people while still being able to do what he wants. Nuance at work.
The Potomac Conference had no qualms about exercising influence over the Takoma Park Church by recommending the services of Paul Borden or by coming to Takoma Park to urge acceptance of the new governance structure when it was presented. Yet when the legitimacy of the new governance was questioned in the Group’s appeal to the conference they were suddenly unwilling to trample our congregational right to self-determination by giving a decisive answer. Their vagueness on that occasion allowed Pastor DeSilva to continue doing as he pleased. Nuance at work.
When the Potomac Conference urged acceptance of the altered governance they promised it could be reversed in three years if the congregation wasn’t satisfied. The conference promised to facilitate the exercise of the congregation’s autonomous authority—in order to exercise their own influence in the moment. The promise was later broken. Nuance at work.
So how can this pattern of behavior be stopped? First, recognize it. Second, point it out. Third, keep the attention on the leader’s actions and their results rather than their words. Their words will change more quickly than you can keep track, but they can’t hide their actions. We fully realize that this formula is easier to state than to implement. That’s because of the incredible subtlety of this pattern of behavior, the subtlety is why it is so effective, and its incredible effectiveness is why it absolutely must be addressed.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 32
"I have been shown that there is a fault with us. We honor and flatter human beings, accepting their ideas and their judgment as the voice of God. We advocate their cause. But they are not always safe to follow. Their judgment is erring.
"God would have us ever refuse to plead against the truth. His frown is upon all that is false or unfair. This should be the position of everyone who stands to minister in the service of his Master. For if one to whom God has entrusted holy responsibilities allows envy, evil surmising, prejudice, and jealousies to find place in the heart, he is guilty of breaking the law of God. And his words, his ideas, and his errors will extend just as far as his sphere of influence extends.
"God says to every man to whom He entrusts responsibilities, 'Put not your trust in man, neither make flesh your arm.' Look to God. Trust in His infallible wisdom. Regard as a sin the practice so common, even among Seventh-day Adventists, of becoming the echo of any man, however lofty his position. Listen to the voice of the great Shepherd, and you will never be led astray. Search the Scriptures for yourself and be braced for duty and for trial by the truth of God's Word" (Manuscript Releases, Vol. 11, pp.82 & 83).
"You are not the only men whom God will use. Give the Lord room to use the talents he has entrusted to men in order that the cause may grow. Give the Lord a chance to use men's minds. We are losing much by our narrow ideas and plans. Do not stand in the way of the advancement of the work, but let the Lord work by whom He will. Educate, encourage young men to think and act, to devise and plan, in order that we may have a multitude of wise counselors. . . .
"This same character of spirit [centralization of power] is found here in Europe. For years Elder D held the work back from advancing, because he feared to entrust it to others lest they should not carry out his precise plans. He would never allow anything to come into existence that did not originate with him. Elder E also held everything in his grasp while he was in California and England, and as a result the work is years behind in England. . . .
"The children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. Jesus said this, and we see that the world works on a different plan in these matters. Weighty responsibilities connected with the business of the world are not placed wholly upon one man. In large business enterprises responsible men choose others to share their burdens and lift their responsibilities so that in case one should fail there is someone ready to step into his place. Someone should feel a burden over these matters, and a decided change should take place in the manner of our work" (Letter 12, 1885, pp. 3-5, To G. I. Butler and S. N. Haskell, October 28, 1885).
"God would have us ever refuse to plead against the truth. His frown is upon all that is false or unfair. This should be the position of everyone who stands to minister in the service of his Master. For if one to whom God has entrusted holy responsibilities allows envy, evil surmising, prejudice, and jealousies to find place in the heart, he is guilty of breaking the law of God. And his words, his ideas, and his errors will extend just as far as his sphere of influence extends.
"God says to every man to whom He entrusts responsibilities, 'Put not your trust in man, neither make flesh your arm.' Look to God. Trust in His infallible wisdom. Regard as a sin the practice so common, even among Seventh-day Adventists, of becoming the echo of any man, however lofty his position. Listen to the voice of the great Shepherd, and you will never be led astray. Search the Scriptures for yourself and be braced for duty and for trial by the truth of God's Word" (Manuscript Releases, Vol. 11, pp.82 & 83).
"You are not the only men whom God will use. Give the Lord room to use the talents he has entrusted to men in order that the cause may grow. Give the Lord a chance to use men's minds. We are losing much by our narrow ideas and plans. Do not stand in the way of the advancement of the work, but let the Lord work by whom He will. Educate, encourage young men to think and act, to devise and plan, in order that we may have a multitude of wise counselors. . . .
"This same character of spirit [centralization of power] is found here in Europe. For years Elder D held the work back from advancing, because he feared to entrust it to others lest they should not carry out his precise plans. He would never allow anything to come into existence that did not originate with him. Elder E also held everything in his grasp while he was in California and England, and as a result the work is years behind in England. . . .
"The children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. Jesus said this, and we see that the world works on a different plan in these matters. Weighty responsibilities connected with the business of the world are not placed wholly upon one man. In large business enterprises responsible men choose others to share their burdens and lift their responsibilities so that in case one should fail there is someone ready to step into his place. Someone should feel a burden over these matters, and a decided change should take place in the manner of our work" (Letter 12, 1885, pp. 3-5, To G. I. Butler and S. N. Haskell, October 28, 1885).
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 20
In November of 1873 George Butler (the then President of the General Conference) presented to the General Conference in Session an essay on his philosophy of leadership and authority within the Adventist Church. He put forward the idea that, like the Israelites in the wilderness, the Adventist Church should be controlled by a single visible leader who would have final authority within the Church. He believed that this person ought to be James White.
This speech was received so enthusiastically that it was decided that the text thereof ought to be published in a pamphlet for distribution among the church membership. Shortly after this address was delivered Ellen White spoke against the philosophy, indicating that final authority within the Church belonged to the body of believers (as represented by the General Conference), not any single individual. Having been thus corrected by the Spirit of Prophesy George Butler publicly recanted the philosophy, but his subsequent behavior suggests that he still believed it privately.
In 1880 George Butler was again elected President of the General Conference. (James White had served as President for several years in the 1870s, but his health was failing and he finally died on August 6, 1881.) In this office he again sought to gather authority to a single individual—himself. This time the centralization of power was, in theory, to the hands of the General Conference, but as President the functional reality was that the power was in George Butler’s hands. To put it simply, he tried to make everybody’s decisions for them. This included decisions that ought to have been managed by the local conferences and the auxiliaries.
A quick example of George Butler’s desire for control can be seen in the following excerpt from a brief article he placed in the Review and Herald of March 10, 1885, “We are embarrassed somewhat at the REVIEW Office by communications coming in from State officers where we fear no consultation had been taken with the general officers. It has placed the REVIEW in a position of perplexity. As it is our church paper we are glad to assist in every good work, and wish to publish matters of interest that will help forward this cause; yet we feel it is not a proper principle to publish notices from the States when there has been no consultation, and no mutual agreement between them and the general officers of the Association.”
Ellen White did not keep silent about this behavior. She spoke against it quite forcefully, pointing the Church and its leaders back to the need to hear the representative voices of many through the committee system of decision making. In writing to another one of the brethren she counseled, “Your case has been laid open before me, and I know from what has been presented, that you spend many hours of grief and despondency, because you think your brethren simply tolerate you, but do not put confidence in you, and trust you. It would not be right for them to act toward you as they have acted toward Elder Butler. Men have placed him where God should be placed, and by so doing, have ruined their own religious experience, and have also ruined Elder Butler, and the church was becoming strengthless, Christless, because they glorified men when every jot of glory should be given to God” (Miscellaneous Collections 1888, p.966).
Later in the same letter she returned to the subject of George Butler’s leadership style, “I hope there will never be the slightest encouragement given to our people to put such wonderful confidence in finite, erring man as has been placed in Elder Butler, for ministers are not as God, and too much reliance has been placed upon Elder Butler in the past. Even the messages and testimonies were made of none effect through the influence of the words and ideas of Elder Butler. This sin has not been repented of by some of our people, and they will have to go over the ground again and again unless they cease from man, and put their whole trust in the living God. The mould which has been given to the work through the influence of Elder Butler has caused the labor of many toilsome years that it might be effaced. It is because men have been encouraged to look to one man to think for them, to be conscience for them, that they are now so inefficient, and unable to stand at their post of duty as faithful sentinels for God, allowing no one to interfere in matters pertaining to their relation to God. Let men seek not to men, but to God for wisdom” (Ibid, p.975).
Just after the 1888 General Conference Session Ellen White wrote to her daughter-in-law Mary that, “A sick man's mind has had a controlling power over the General Conference Committee and the ministers have been the shadow and echo of Elder Butler about as long as it is healthy and for the good of the cause. Envy, evil surmisings, jealousies have been working like leaven until the whole lump seemed to be leavened.
“Elder Butler, we think, has been in office three years too long and now all humility and lowliness of mind have departed from him. He thinks his position gives him such power that his voice is infallible. To get this off from the minds of our brethren has been a difficult matter. His case will be difficult to handle but we trust in God” (Ibid, p.183).
In 1888 George Butler was replaced as General Conference President. Though the most vocal proponent of centralized leadership was then out of the system, his philosophies continued to impact the way the General Conference was run. And Ellen White continued to speak against centralization of power. (Her reasons for opposing this philosophy will be discussed later in this series.)
Next: Districts
This speech was received so enthusiastically that it was decided that the text thereof ought to be published in a pamphlet for distribution among the church membership. Shortly after this address was delivered Ellen White spoke against the philosophy, indicating that final authority within the Church belonged to the body of believers (as represented by the General Conference), not any single individual. Having been thus corrected by the Spirit of Prophesy George Butler publicly recanted the philosophy, but his subsequent behavior suggests that he still believed it privately.
In 1880 George Butler was again elected President of the General Conference. (James White had served as President for several years in the 1870s, but his health was failing and he finally died on August 6, 1881.) In this office he again sought to gather authority to a single individual—himself. This time the centralization of power was, in theory, to the hands of the General Conference, but as President the functional reality was that the power was in George Butler’s hands. To put it simply, he tried to make everybody’s decisions for them. This included decisions that ought to have been managed by the local conferences and the auxiliaries.
A quick example of George Butler’s desire for control can be seen in the following excerpt from a brief article he placed in the Review and Herald of March 10, 1885, “We are embarrassed somewhat at the REVIEW Office by communications coming in from State officers where we fear no consultation had been taken with the general officers. It has placed the REVIEW in a position of perplexity. As it is our church paper we are glad to assist in every good work, and wish to publish matters of interest that will help forward this cause; yet we feel it is not a proper principle to publish notices from the States when there has been no consultation, and no mutual agreement between them and the general officers of the Association.”
Ellen White did not keep silent about this behavior. She spoke against it quite forcefully, pointing the Church and its leaders back to the need to hear the representative voices of many through the committee system of decision making. In writing to another one of the brethren she counseled, “Your case has been laid open before me, and I know from what has been presented, that you spend many hours of grief and despondency, because you think your brethren simply tolerate you, but do not put confidence in you, and trust you. It would not be right for them to act toward you as they have acted toward Elder Butler. Men have placed him where God should be placed, and by so doing, have ruined their own religious experience, and have also ruined Elder Butler, and the church was becoming strengthless, Christless, because they glorified men when every jot of glory should be given to God” (Miscellaneous Collections 1888, p.966).
Later in the same letter she returned to the subject of George Butler’s leadership style, “I hope there will never be the slightest encouragement given to our people to put such wonderful confidence in finite, erring man as has been placed in Elder Butler, for ministers are not as God, and too much reliance has been placed upon Elder Butler in the past. Even the messages and testimonies were made of none effect through the influence of the words and ideas of Elder Butler. This sin has not been repented of by some of our people, and they will have to go over the ground again and again unless they cease from man, and put their whole trust in the living God. The mould which has been given to the work through the influence of Elder Butler has caused the labor of many toilsome years that it might be effaced. It is because men have been encouraged to look to one man to think for them, to be conscience for them, that they are now so inefficient, and unable to stand at their post of duty as faithful sentinels for God, allowing no one to interfere in matters pertaining to their relation to God. Let men seek not to men, but to God for wisdom” (Ibid, p.975).
Just after the 1888 General Conference Session Ellen White wrote to her daughter-in-law Mary that, “A sick man's mind has had a controlling power over the General Conference Committee and the ministers have been the shadow and echo of Elder Butler about as long as it is healthy and for the good of the cause. Envy, evil surmisings, jealousies have been working like leaven until the whole lump seemed to be leavened.
“Elder Butler, we think, has been in office three years too long and now all humility and lowliness of mind have departed from him. He thinks his position gives him such power that his voice is infallible. To get this off from the minds of our brethren has been a difficult matter. His case will be difficult to handle but we trust in God” (Ibid, p.183).
In 1888 George Butler was replaced as General Conference President. Though the most vocal proponent of centralized leadership was then out of the system, his philosophies continued to impact the way the General Conference was run. And Ellen White continued to speak against centralization of power. (Her reasons for opposing this philosophy will be discussed later in this series.)
Next: Districts
Friday, March 11, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 19
By the 1870s things were finally going well for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. When they turned their full attention to the task of evangelizing, however, it slowly occurred to them that the scope of the task was much greater than they had in mind. Their efforts, which were concentrated and headquartered in Michigan, reached only through the northern United States. Even in this area they were scantily represented. As the benefits of organized labor began to be felt in terms of church growth they came to realize that taking the three angels’ messages to the whole world required that they literally take it to the whole world, not just the modest territory they currently occupied, or even expansions of influence within the territory of the United States.
This realization of the full scope of the task came at a time when foreign missionary activity was becoming popular in denominations throughout the United States. The Adventist Church shared in, and perhaps fed on, this enthusiasm. The result was a dramatic growth in membership both in the United States and other nations. This growth put strains on the organizational system which had not been foreseen at its founding.
One of these strains was the need for more qualified workers. To address this need a school was begun in Battle Creek, MI on June 3, 1872. Its first academic year was only 12 weeks long and it didn’t even have its own school building, but from that humble beginning it eventually grew into the institution known today as Andrews University. Additional schools were opened in other places. In 1873 the Educational Society auxiliary was formed to address this growing enterprise.
This pattern for organizational expansion (see a specialized need and form an auxiliary to address it) led to the creation of the General Tract and Missionary Society in 1874, the General Sabbath School Association in 1878, the Health and Temperance Organization in 1879, the Missionary Board in 1879 (which was reorganized in 1889 as the Foreign Mission Board), the General Conference Association in 1887, the National Religious Liberty Association in 1889, and the Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association in 1893. This profusion of independent entities with overlapping purposes caused a state of administrative confusion that will be addressed more fully later in this series.
The 1880s also saw changes, albeit relatively minor ones, in the “official” Church structure. The most notable of these was the gradual enlargement of the General Conference Executive Committee. At its creation in 1863 it had three members. This was enlarged first to five, then seven, and by 1891 had reached a membership of nine. Also, at the 1889 General Conference Session it was decided that Sessions would be held every two years. Up to that point General Conference Sessions had been held every single year.
These expansions created a need to define relationships and philosophies of authority.
Next: Centralization vs. Delegation
This realization of the full scope of the task came at a time when foreign missionary activity was becoming popular in denominations throughout the United States. The Adventist Church shared in, and perhaps fed on, this enthusiasm. The result was a dramatic growth in membership both in the United States and other nations. This growth put strains on the organizational system which had not been foreseen at its founding.
One of these strains was the need for more qualified workers. To address this need a school was begun in Battle Creek, MI on June 3, 1872. Its first academic year was only 12 weeks long and it didn’t even have its own school building, but from that humble beginning it eventually grew into the institution known today as Andrews University. Additional schools were opened in other places. In 1873 the Educational Society auxiliary was formed to address this growing enterprise.
This pattern for organizational expansion (see a specialized need and form an auxiliary to address it) led to the creation of the General Tract and Missionary Society in 1874, the General Sabbath School Association in 1878, the Health and Temperance Organization in 1879, the Missionary Board in 1879 (which was reorganized in 1889 as the Foreign Mission Board), the General Conference Association in 1887, the National Religious Liberty Association in 1889, and the Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association in 1893. This profusion of independent entities with overlapping purposes caused a state of administrative confusion that will be addressed more fully later in this series.
The 1880s also saw changes, albeit relatively minor ones, in the “official” Church structure. The most notable of these was the gradual enlargement of the General Conference Executive Committee. At its creation in 1863 it had three members. This was enlarged first to five, then seven, and by 1891 had reached a membership of nine. Also, at the 1889 General Conference Session it was decided that Sessions would be held every two years. Up to that point General Conference Sessions had been held every single year.
These expansions created a need to define relationships and philosophies of authority.
Next: Centralization vs. Delegation
Monday, March 7, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 18
There is one more article in the series on organization from 1907 that we have been following, but it doesn’t follow the history of organizational development any further. Instead, it contains an analysis of the historical data in the context of the dispute over organization the series was originally intended to address. We’ll present that final article when we get to that part of the history.
When the General Conference was formed in 1863 it had roughly 3500 members, 125 churches, and 6 state conferences. With this much accomplished the church leaders at that time figured they were done with the task of organization. To be sure, there were more churches and state conferences that needed to go through the steps of organizing, and they fully intended to continue evangelizing in new territories that would also need to take these organizing steps, but the template was established. They fully believed that this template would be adequate to serve the needs of the denomination for the brief time that remained until the second coming.
Their expectation of being able to now turn their full attention to evangelism was impeded by the progression of the American Civil War. This event didn’t have the effect of placing church members in opposition to each other, since the entire Adventist Church at that time was located within the territory of the Northern side of the conflict, but it was a significant drain on the financial resources of the members, as well as being an impediment to travel, a distraction of public attention, etc.
After the war ended the Adventist Church found their work again impeded—this time by the matter of health. Since the early 1860s Ellen White had been receiving visions on the subject of healthful living. Many of the concepts presented were contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day on how to live healthfully. The Whites tried to live according to the principles of “health reform,” as these concepts were called, and to instruct their fellow Adventists in them, but initially this subject was not given a great deal of emphasis. This changed when James White suffered a stroke on August 16, 1865. This stroke had been brought on by overwork. He eventually recovered enough to return to his work for the Church, but his recovery took nearly a year and a half. This event, combined with the fact that during this same period a number of the Church’s other prominent evangelists were also rendered unable to work because of illness, brought the matter of health reform to the forefront of the Adventist Church’s attention.
Once the Adventist Church realized the importance of the health reform message (both for personal well-being and as an evangelistic tool) it acted decisively to practice and spread it. On September 5, 1866 a Health Institute was opened in Battle Creek, MI. This Institute was a treatment center which implemented the principles of health reform in the care it provided. Legally, it was organized the same way as the Publishing Association—as a separate legal entity operated by a board and not responsible to the General Conference. It, like the Publishing Association, was tied to the official organization of the Church in that it was founded and run by Adventists, and had as its legal decision makers many of the same people who held positions of authority within the Church, but it had no legal obligation to be associated with, or report to, the official Church structure. This organizational precedent would be followed in the creation of each of the “auxiliaries” (as these related but separate entities came to be known) that were established over the next 30 years.
It seems that James White was one of the few skilled businessmen employed by the Church during this period. Until his stroke he had headed the work of the Publishing Association and it had prospered under his care. However, during the absence caused by his health problems both the Publishing Association and the newly formed Health Institute encountered difficulties caused by poor business decisions and ran up massive debts. Things got so bad for the Health Institute that when James White was added to its board in May of 1868 he wondered whether it could be continued at all or if it simply ought to be closed and its few assets sold to attempt to clear its debt. These doubts notwithstanding, he labored to turn the situation around for both the Health Institute and the Publishing Association, for which he had again become responsible. By 1871 these efforts had been successful and both enterprises were once again prosperous.
This experience impressed upon James White the need for the Church to bring skilled businessmen into the work of the Church. A majority of his fellow Church leaders seemed happy enough to allow him to carry the full load of the business aspects of the Church’s work, but James White was painfully aware that such an inordinate burden was what had caused his stroke and he was afraid that allowing the situation to continue would cause another such breakdown. He further recognized that even if he were able to do it all alone there would come a time when he would no longer be around and the Church needed to learn to manage its business without him. He finally managed to convince his fellow Church leaders of this need. At the 1871 General Conference Session a committee was formed and commissioned to recruit skilled businessmen from among the body of Adventist laymen to relocate to the Church headquarters in Battle Creek, MI and help in managing the business aspects of the work.
Next: A Formula for Expansion
When the General Conference was formed in 1863 it had roughly 3500 members, 125 churches, and 6 state conferences. With this much accomplished the church leaders at that time figured they were done with the task of organization. To be sure, there were more churches and state conferences that needed to go through the steps of organizing, and they fully intended to continue evangelizing in new territories that would also need to take these organizing steps, but the template was established. They fully believed that this template would be adequate to serve the needs of the denomination for the brief time that remained until the second coming.
Their expectation of being able to now turn their full attention to evangelism was impeded by the progression of the American Civil War. This event didn’t have the effect of placing church members in opposition to each other, since the entire Adventist Church at that time was located within the territory of the Northern side of the conflict, but it was a significant drain on the financial resources of the members, as well as being an impediment to travel, a distraction of public attention, etc.
After the war ended the Adventist Church found their work again impeded—this time by the matter of health. Since the early 1860s Ellen White had been receiving visions on the subject of healthful living. Many of the concepts presented were contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day on how to live healthfully. The Whites tried to live according to the principles of “health reform,” as these concepts were called, and to instruct their fellow Adventists in them, but initially this subject was not given a great deal of emphasis. This changed when James White suffered a stroke on August 16, 1865. This stroke had been brought on by overwork. He eventually recovered enough to return to his work for the Church, but his recovery took nearly a year and a half. This event, combined with the fact that during this same period a number of the Church’s other prominent evangelists were also rendered unable to work because of illness, brought the matter of health reform to the forefront of the Adventist Church’s attention.
Once the Adventist Church realized the importance of the health reform message (both for personal well-being and as an evangelistic tool) it acted decisively to practice and spread it. On September 5, 1866 a Health Institute was opened in Battle Creek, MI. This Institute was a treatment center which implemented the principles of health reform in the care it provided. Legally, it was organized the same way as the Publishing Association—as a separate legal entity operated by a board and not responsible to the General Conference. It, like the Publishing Association, was tied to the official organization of the Church in that it was founded and run by Adventists, and had as its legal decision makers many of the same people who held positions of authority within the Church, but it had no legal obligation to be associated with, or report to, the official Church structure. This organizational precedent would be followed in the creation of each of the “auxiliaries” (as these related but separate entities came to be known) that were established over the next 30 years.
It seems that James White was one of the few skilled businessmen employed by the Church during this period. Until his stroke he had headed the work of the Publishing Association and it had prospered under his care. However, during the absence caused by his health problems both the Publishing Association and the newly formed Health Institute encountered difficulties caused by poor business decisions and ran up massive debts. Things got so bad for the Health Institute that when James White was added to its board in May of 1868 he wondered whether it could be continued at all or if it simply ought to be closed and its few assets sold to attempt to clear its debt. These doubts notwithstanding, he labored to turn the situation around for both the Health Institute and the Publishing Association, for which he had again become responsible. By 1871 these efforts had been successful and both enterprises were once again prosperous.
This experience impressed upon James White the need for the Church to bring skilled businessmen into the work of the Church. A majority of his fellow Church leaders seemed happy enough to allow him to carry the full load of the business aspects of the Church’s work, but James White was painfully aware that such an inordinate burden was what had caused his stroke and he was afraid that allowing the situation to continue would cause another such breakdown. He further recognized that even if he were able to do it all alone there would come a time when he would no longer be around and the Church needed to learn to manage its business without him. He finally managed to convince his fellow Church leaders of this need. At the 1871 General Conference Session a committee was formed and commissioned to recruit skilled businessmen from among the body of Adventist laymen to relocate to the Church headquarters in Battle Creek, MI and help in managing the business aspects of the work.
Next: A Formula for Expansion
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The Principles of Organization
The article quoted in Our Roots, Pt.17 gave a summary of the events in the organizational development of the Adventist Church from the Millerite Movement in the 1840s through the formation of the General Conference in 1863. It seems appropriate at this point to also note and emphasize the principles which guided these developments. Since they will be largely self-evident to the discerning reader we will not spend a great deal of time on each one.
1. Free Discussion. The movement toward organization began in earnest when a general call for ideas on how to manage the business aspects of the Church’s work went out to all of the Advent believers. All were welcome to contribute their thoughts, and a great many did—on both sides of the issue. No one was denied participation.
2. Consensus Decisions. There was no group compelling their brethren to accept an action they were not comfortable with. The body of believers did not move forward on the issue until all were convinced that it was the right thing to do.
3. Representative Government. The authority to make decisions originated with the people and continued to rest with the people. There was no bishop or patriarch whom the people were required to obey. All were required to think for themselves and come together to make group decisions.
4. Transparency. There was no attempt to hide the deliberations and decisions of the appointed representatives from the general body of believers.
5. Simplicity. No unneeded processes or layers were built into the system designed. The intent was that it be understandable and efficient.
6. Utility. The organization was created for a purpose—to nurture and add to the body of believers. There was no interest in showiness, ceremony, or worldly acclaim among the motives for organization.
7. Stewardship. One of the driving motivations for organization was to have the legal means to handle the Lord’s resources honorably and effectively. This included property, financial, and human resources.
8. Coordinated Effort. There may be many different ways to accomplish the same thing. However, if every time something is begun one way and then left to others to complete it gets torn down and started over in a different way, then nothing will ever get done. There was a recognition on the part of the founders of the Adventist Church that successful effort required coordination, so that each new laborer who came along would built on the efforts of those who came before them rather than starting over again.
As this story continues we will see that these underlying principles continue to be the backbone of Adventist organizational development.
1. Free Discussion. The movement toward organization began in earnest when a general call for ideas on how to manage the business aspects of the Church’s work went out to all of the Advent believers. All were welcome to contribute their thoughts, and a great many did—on both sides of the issue. No one was denied participation.
2. Consensus Decisions. There was no group compelling their brethren to accept an action they were not comfortable with. The body of believers did not move forward on the issue until all were convinced that it was the right thing to do.
3. Representative Government. The authority to make decisions originated with the people and continued to rest with the people. There was no bishop or patriarch whom the people were required to obey. All were required to think for themselves and come together to make group decisions.
4. Transparency. There was no attempt to hide the deliberations and decisions of the appointed representatives from the general body of believers.
5. Simplicity. No unneeded processes or layers were built into the system designed. The intent was that it be understandable and efficient.
6. Utility. The organization was created for a purpose—to nurture and add to the body of believers. There was no interest in showiness, ceremony, or worldly acclaim among the motives for organization.
7. Stewardship. One of the driving motivations for organization was to have the legal means to handle the Lord’s resources honorably and effectively. This included property, financial, and human resources.
8. Coordinated Effort. There may be many different ways to accomplish the same thing. However, if every time something is begun one way and then left to others to complete it gets torn down and started over in a different way, then nothing will ever get done. There was a recognition on the part of the founders of the Adventist Church that successful effort required coordination, so that each new laborer who came along would built on the efforts of those who came before them rather than starting over again.
As this story continues we will see that these underlying principles continue to be the backbone of Adventist organizational development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)