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