The first major order of business for Daniells (who was still General Conference president) after the 1903 General Conference Session was to find an appropriate new location for the General Conference offices and the Review and Herald Publishing House. The 1903 Session had decided that they ought to move to the Atlantic Coast, but that still left the matter fairly wide open. Some suggested a location near New York City. Ellen White had a general impression that the area around Washington, DC should also be considered. Daniells set off on a trip to survey both areas for possible locations. As his trip progressed the guidance from Ellen White became more definite that the search should concentrate on the Washington, DC area.
Undeveloped property was eventually purchased in Takoma Park, a small town which was half in northern Washington, DC and half in Maryland. Buildings were rented in downtown Washington for use by the General Conference and Review and Herald while permanent facilities were being built on the new land. It was decided that a college and a sanitarium should also be built on the site. In August of 1903 all of the office equipment and personnel for the General Conference and Review and Herald were packed up and shipped by train from Battle Creek to the new temporary facilities in Washington.
At the 1903 Autumn Council Kellogg’s pantheistic philosophies took center stage. This was not what Daniells had intended, but Kellogg had been agitating his views among Church leaders for the last year and it was an issue which could no longer be ignored. It had been an undercurrent at the 1903 Session roughly six months before, and Ellen White had intended several times to speak publicly on the matter and put an end to it, but each time she came close to doing so she was impressed to wait. This time was different.
The Autumn Council was taking place at the rented facilities in Washington. Ellen White stayed at her home in California. When it became apparent that the issue could not wait any longer, Daniells devoted a day to presentations and open debate for and against Kellogg’s views. He closed the day without calling for a vote on the matter. When he got home that night he found two letters waiting for him from Ellen White which directly addressed the issues. These he read to the Council the following morning and they permanently settled the matter in the minds of the Church leaders. The Seventh-day Adventist Church rejected Kellogg’s pantheism.
At first, Kellogg seemed to accept this instruction from the Spirit of Prophesy. It didn’t last. He was soon back to agitating the same views. He also had some loyal supporters, most notably Jones. This minority refused to let the matter drop. What did happen was that Kellogg’s pantheistic theological views and Jones’s organizational views—which we have already seen to be very sympathetic—meshed into one viewpoint. Jones viewed the rejection of Kellogg’s views as a rejection of his own (and to the point that they tended in the same direction this was true). These two men fed off each other, defending and pushing each other to the extreme of their shared viewpoint. In 1904 both Jones and Waggoner moved to Battle Creek to work more closely with Kellogg. Their determination to maintain a position rejected by the leadership of the Church began to form a schism.
During all of this Kellogg had simply chosen to ignore the directive from the 1903 Session that he should arrange for all the assets of the International Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association to come under the direct control of the denomination. Instead, he was pulling even further away from the Church. By the 1905 General Conference Session it was apparent that the health reform work of the Church essentially had to start over in terms of building up a network of institutions it could control. To this end the 1905 Session created a Health Department for the General Conference. The other organizationally significant action of the 1905 Session was to lengthen the interval between Sessions to four years instead of two. This happened because a substantial amount of the work which had previously been done during Sessions was now being handled by the union conferences, reducing the need for general meetings. This Session also saw Ellen White declare that because he persisted with his incompatible pantheistic views Kellogg was no longer to be considered a leader and teacher within the denomination or invited to participate in its leadership meetings.
Next: Ellen White Speaking Out
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
How to get a Church Administrator's Attention
It can sometimes be difficult to get the attention of high ranking church administrators when facing a problem in your local church with which you need their assistance. This is not surprising considering who is competing with you for their attention. Other petitioners are certain to include (Oh, how can we say this nicely?) those with “new light” to share, individuals who are complaining about something just to get attention, conspiracy theorists, and even the flat-out mentally imbalanced. And all of this is on top of the administrator’s regular day-to-day business. So how can someone with a legitimate problem or grievance get noticed among this crowd of mind-numbing communications?
1. Direct your communications to the lowest appropriate level of church organization. No church leader is going to get involved in a situation if it can be handled by someone at a lower level. So if your problem is with a fellow lay member, direct your communications to your pastor. If the problem involves the pastor, go to the conference. If the conference can’t help, or is involved in the problem, go to the union. (Next comes the division, and last is the General Conference.) If you jump a step on the ladder you will at best be instructed to go back down and at worst simply be ignored.
2. Don’t assume they know what you’re talking about. It is all too easy, when caught up in a situation, to forget that others may not know anything about it. Let’s assume that the problem in question is that the first elder of your church has taken to bringing his saxophone to services and spontaneously playing it at random points during the sermon “to add emphasis.” Let’s also assume that your pastor finds this highly flattering and refuses to put a stop to the behavior. And to add insult to injury, it just happens that the elder does this from a seat that is angled just right for the sunlight to reflect off the saxophone and into your eyes.
If you start your letter to the conference leadership by saying, “You can’t imagine how upset we all are. This has been going on so long that it’s starting to affect attendance. And that high note last week after having the awful glare in my eyes for over 20 minutes just gave me the most terrible headache. What’s it going to take to stop this incredibly unchristian behavior by Elder Green? Pastor Yellow certainly isn’t going to!” the reader isn’t going to have any idea what the problem is, other than that it has been going on for a while and involves Elder Green. What’s more, they probably aren’t invested enough to do the detective work to put the pieces together.
But let’s try that letter again. “For six weeks now Elder Green has been punctuating the sermon with spontaneous saxophone playing. Pastor Yellow likes it, but the congregation finds it distracting and irritating and many are attending church elsewhere because of it.” The reader now knows exactly what the problem is.
This advice can apply even if you have spoken to the administrator about the problem before. If you have communicated previously you probably don’t need to go into as much detail, but a quick statement to help them remember the previous communication is still a good idea. It could be something as simple as, “Per our informal conversation in the lobby of the bank on March 3, I am writing to formalize my complaint about Elder Green’s saxophone playing during Pastor Yellow’s sermons.”
3. Come to the point quickly. A brief salutation such as, “I hope this letter finds you well,” can be an appropriate beginning to a letter of complaint. This is especially true if you happen to be personally acquainted with the person you are writing to, but if you spend too long getting to your point the attention span of your reader may expire before you reach it. So skip the, “I really liked the sermon you gave when you visited our church three months ago. I hope you enjoyed the potluck afterward. We usually have a better attendance than that, but it was raining that Sabbath. By the way, how’s your dog doing?” This also applies to details of the actual situation. If you spend a paragraph listing all the people who are no longer attending because of Elder Green’s saxophone playing—before you get around to explaining that it is spontaneous saxophone playing during the sermon that is driving them away—you are equally likely to have already lost your reader.
4. Minimize the emotions. If your church problem is causing you emotional distress its fine to include that fact in your letter, but dwelling on it at length is likely to make the reader less sympathetic, not more. You will almost certainly be having some sort of emotional reaction to the problem; don’t let that emotion be so overwhelming in the way you write that it obscures your actual content.
What to avoid: “I could just kill that AWFUL ELDER GREEN! And PASTOR YELLOW just keeps egging him on! This is just RUINING my nerves! That awful screeching and wailing, I just can’t stand it any longer! And it’s not even something consistent that you could get used to! Every time I calm down and get focused on the message he starts right up again! After last week’s sermon I couldn’t sleep the night through. I kept waking up with NIGHTMARES ABOUT THAT HORRIBLE SAXOPHONE!”
Getting it right: “My frustration is growing because of Pastor Yellow’s unwillingness to discourage Elder Green’s playing. It would be one thing if Elder Green played a quiet melody all through the sermon, but the stops and starts are startling and distracting. I find that I’m jumpy for hours after each sermon.”
5. Make your tone both emphatic and respectful. You’re writing to a church administrator to convince them to do something. Don’t be afraid to use strong, persuasive language. On the other hand, you don’t want to take it so far as to be either threatening or insulting. “If you wouldn’t mind considering our situation, you may find that Elder Green’s music is less than ideal for a worshipful atmosphere,” and “I can’t believe you’re ignoring me! For you to allow Elder Green to go on ruining the congregation’s worship experience week after week just shows what a lousy leader you are!” are equally unproductive. It would be better to say, “Our experience over the last six weeks has shown that Elder Green’s musical contributions are actually impeding the worship experience for our members by distracting from, rather than amplifying, the sermon. I urge you to counsel Pastor Yellow about more productive ways to incorporate Elder Green’s desire to contribute musically to the services.”
6. Leave off your church resume. It can be tempting when writing to church administrators to try to convince them of your worthiness to be heard by listing all your connections to, or the things you’ve done for, the church during your lifetime. This tends to backfire because no matter how much you’ve done the church administrator will likely have done more and will be bored or put off rather than impressed. This also goes back to #3, “Get to your point quickly.” You don’t want to spend so long listing all your work for the church that the reader stops reading before you start in on your real subject.
The one exception to this rule is when an item in your church resume speaks directly to the subject at hand. It would be appropriate to say, “Having spent 23 years in various church orchestras, I’m pretty sure Elder Green’s saxophone isn’t even tuned properly. The resulting dissonance makes his musical interjections even more unpleasant.” Just leave out the facts that you’re a third generation Adventist, have shoveled the snow from the church sidewalks every winter since you were 14 years old, and once shook the hand of the president of the General Conference.
7. State facts rather than judgments. Facts are less likely to anger people. In our example scenario, the fact list could include 1) Elder Green has been playing his saxophone during the sermon for six weeks, 2) during those six weeks attendance has dropped 15%, 3) the front half of the left bank of pews is undesirable to sit in because of sunlight being reflected off the saxophone, and 4) Elder Green’s saxophone is not properly tuned. Judgments about this situation could include 1) Elder Green has no sense of musical timing and 2) Pastor Yellow is blind to the distress this situation is causing the congregation. The judgments could well be accurate, but it is usually better to let the reader come to them on their own rather than stating them outright lest you be accused of being judgmental.
8. Explain why the situation is a problem. Are you concerned about Elder Green’s saxophone playing because you don’t like saxophones (or Elder Green) or because it is negatively affecting attendance? Our example scenario is so simplistic that by simply stating the facts you have already explained the nature of the problem, but actual situations are usually more complex. Often, specific problem events are only symptoms of larger issues. It is this larger issue (if there is one) that you want to address, or you will continue to have problem situations or behaviors. Take the time to think through what, if any, underlying issues may be causing your problem. If you identify any, be sure to point them out in your communication. Even if there are no deeper issues, restate the nature of the problem clearly and succinctly toward the end of the letter to help the reader focus on what you are calling their attention to.
9. Specify what you want. The obvious answer is, “Fix it,” but that’s far too broad a request to be useful. Are you asking for a conference-wide ban on saxophones in church? Do you want to know whether you can enact church discipline against Elder Green? Or do you just want the conference president (or someone) to call Pastor Yellow and advise him to find some other musical outlet for Elder Green? Think through the result you desire and make specific requests that are within the power of the church administrator to fulfill.
10. Pay attention to the technical quality of your writing. You don’t have to be a best-selling author to write to a church administrator; just double check your work to eliminate mistakes in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. If you aren’t sure, ask someone else to read it over for you. A second pair of eyes can also help you identify sentences that don’t flow well or other adjustments that could be made to make your letter clearer and more persuasive. It may be that all the church administrator will know about you is what he sees in your letter. Take the time to ensure that it is a favorable impression.
11. Be persistent, but not a pest. This applies primarily to situations where you live near, work near, or otherwise have opportunities to interact with the church administrator on a regular or semi-regular basis. If every time you’re in the same room you start in on Elder Green’s annoying saxophone playing it will not be long before the church administrator will dread to see you coming. If you are in a situation where you have regular contact with the church administrator you should still make your point and follow up on it, but keep it from consuming all of your interactions. You will do more credit to your appeal if you can demonstrate that you are a balanced person with ideas, interests, and skills beyond the issue you are appealing for help with.
1. Direct your communications to the lowest appropriate level of church organization. No church leader is going to get involved in a situation if it can be handled by someone at a lower level. So if your problem is with a fellow lay member, direct your communications to your pastor. If the problem involves the pastor, go to the conference. If the conference can’t help, or is involved in the problem, go to the union. (Next comes the division, and last is the General Conference.) If you jump a step on the ladder you will at best be instructed to go back down and at worst simply be ignored.
2. Don’t assume they know what you’re talking about. It is all too easy, when caught up in a situation, to forget that others may not know anything about it. Let’s assume that the problem in question is that the first elder of your church has taken to bringing his saxophone to services and spontaneously playing it at random points during the sermon “to add emphasis.” Let’s also assume that your pastor finds this highly flattering and refuses to put a stop to the behavior. And to add insult to injury, it just happens that the elder does this from a seat that is angled just right for the sunlight to reflect off the saxophone and into your eyes.
If you start your letter to the conference leadership by saying, “You can’t imagine how upset we all are. This has been going on so long that it’s starting to affect attendance. And that high note last week after having the awful glare in my eyes for over 20 minutes just gave me the most terrible headache. What’s it going to take to stop this incredibly unchristian behavior by Elder Green? Pastor Yellow certainly isn’t going to!” the reader isn’t going to have any idea what the problem is, other than that it has been going on for a while and involves Elder Green. What’s more, they probably aren’t invested enough to do the detective work to put the pieces together.
But let’s try that letter again. “For six weeks now Elder Green has been punctuating the sermon with spontaneous saxophone playing. Pastor Yellow likes it, but the congregation finds it distracting and irritating and many are attending church elsewhere because of it.” The reader now knows exactly what the problem is.
This advice can apply even if you have spoken to the administrator about the problem before. If you have communicated previously you probably don’t need to go into as much detail, but a quick statement to help them remember the previous communication is still a good idea. It could be something as simple as, “Per our informal conversation in the lobby of the bank on March 3, I am writing to formalize my complaint about Elder Green’s saxophone playing during Pastor Yellow’s sermons.”
3. Come to the point quickly. A brief salutation such as, “I hope this letter finds you well,” can be an appropriate beginning to a letter of complaint. This is especially true if you happen to be personally acquainted with the person you are writing to, but if you spend too long getting to your point the attention span of your reader may expire before you reach it. So skip the, “I really liked the sermon you gave when you visited our church three months ago. I hope you enjoyed the potluck afterward. We usually have a better attendance than that, but it was raining that Sabbath. By the way, how’s your dog doing?” This also applies to details of the actual situation. If you spend a paragraph listing all the people who are no longer attending because of Elder Green’s saxophone playing—before you get around to explaining that it is spontaneous saxophone playing during the sermon that is driving them away—you are equally likely to have already lost your reader.
4. Minimize the emotions. If your church problem is causing you emotional distress its fine to include that fact in your letter, but dwelling on it at length is likely to make the reader less sympathetic, not more. You will almost certainly be having some sort of emotional reaction to the problem; don’t let that emotion be so overwhelming in the way you write that it obscures your actual content.
What to avoid: “I could just kill that AWFUL ELDER GREEN! And PASTOR YELLOW just keeps egging him on! This is just RUINING my nerves! That awful screeching and wailing, I just can’t stand it any longer! And it’s not even something consistent that you could get used to! Every time I calm down and get focused on the message he starts right up again! After last week’s sermon I couldn’t sleep the night through. I kept waking up with NIGHTMARES ABOUT THAT HORRIBLE SAXOPHONE!”
Getting it right: “My frustration is growing because of Pastor Yellow’s unwillingness to discourage Elder Green’s playing. It would be one thing if Elder Green played a quiet melody all through the sermon, but the stops and starts are startling and distracting. I find that I’m jumpy for hours after each sermon.”
5. Make your tone both emphatic and respectful. You’re writing to a church administrator to convince them to do something. Don’t be afraid to use strong, persuasive language. On the other hand, you don’t want to take it so far as to be either threatening or insulting. “If you wouldn’t mind considering our situation, you may find that Elder Green’s music is less than ideal for a worshipful atmosphere,” and “I can’t believe you’re ignoring me! For you to allow Elder Green to go on ruining the congregation’s worship experience week after week just shows what a lousy leader you are!” are equally unproductive. It would be better to say, “Our experience over the last six weeks has shown that Elder Green’s musical contributions are actually impeding the worship experience for our members by distracting from, rather than amplifying, the sermon. I urge you to counsel Pastor Yellow about more productive ways to incorporate Elder Green’s desire to contribute musically to the services.”
6. Leave off your church resume. It can be tempting when writing to church administrators to try to convince them of your worthiness to be heard by listing all your connections to, or the things you’ve done for, the church during your lifetime. This tends to backfire because no matter how much you’ve done the church administrator will likely have done more and will be bored or put off rather than impressed. This also goes back to #3, “Get to your point quickly.” You don’t want to spend so long listing all your work for the church that the reader stops reading before you start in on your real subject.
The one exception to this rule is when an item in your church resume speaks directly to the subject at hand. It would be appropriate to say, “Having spent 23 years in various church orchestras, I’m pretty sure Elder Green’s saxophone isn’t even tuned properly. The resulting dissonance makes his musical interjections even more unpleasant.” Just leave out the facts that you’re a third generation Adventist, have shoveled the snow from the church sidewalks every winter since you were 14 years old, and once shook the hand of the president of the General Conference.
7. State facts rather than judgments. Facts are less likely to anger people. In our example scenario, the fact list could include 1) Elder Green has been playing his saxophone during the sermon for six weeks, 2) during those six weeks attendance has dropped 15%, 3) the front half of the left bank of pews is undesirable to sit in because of sunlight being reflected off the saxophone, and 4) Elder Green’s saxophone is not properly tuned. Judgments about this situation could include 1) Elder Green has no sense of musical timing and 2) Pastor Yellow is blind to the distress this situation is causing the congregation. The judgments could well be accurate, but it is usually better to let the reader come to them on their own rather than stating them outright lest you be accused of being judgmental.
8. Explain why the situation is a problem. Are you concerned about Elder Green’s saxophone playing because you don’t like saxophones (or Elder Green) or because it is negatively affecting attendance? Our example scenario is so simplistic that by simply stating the facts you have already explained the nature of the problem, but actual situations are usually more complex. Often, specific problem events are only symptoms of larger issues. It is this larger issue (if there is one) that you want to address, or you will continue to have problem situations or behaviors. Take the time to think through what, if any, underlying issues may be causing your problem. If you identify any, be sure to point them out in your communication. Even if there are no deeper issues, restate the nature of the problem clearly and succinctly toward the end of the letter to help the reader focus on what you are calling their attention to.
9. Specify what you want. The obvious answer is, “Fix it,” but that’s far too broad a request to be useful. Are you asking for a conference-wide ban on saxophones in church? Do you want to know whether you can enact church discipline against Elder Green? Or do you just want the conference president (or someone) to call Pastor Yellow and advise him to find some other musical outlet for Elder Green? Think through the result you desire and make specific requests that are within the power of the church administrator to fulfill.
10. Pay attention to the technical quality of your writing. You don’t have to be a best-selling author to write to a church administrator; just double check your work to eliminate mistakes in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. If you aren’t sure, ask someone else to read it over for you. A second pair of eyes can also help you identify sentences that don’t flow well or other adjustments that could be made to make your letter clearer and more persuasive. It may be that all the church administrator will know about you is what he sees in your letter. Take the time to ensure that it is a favorable impression.
11. Be persistent, but not a pest. This applies primarily to situations where you live near, work near, or otherwise have opportunities to interact with the church administrator on a regular or semi-regular basis. If every time you’re in the same room you start in on Elder Green’s annoying saxophone playing it will not be long before the church administrator will dread to see you coming. If you are in a situation where you have regular contact with the church administrator you should still make your point and follow up on it, but keep it from consuming all of your interactions. You will do more credit to your appeal if you can demonstrate that you are a balanced person with ideas, interests, and skills beyond the issue you are appealing for help with.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 36
The 1903 General Conference Session opened on Friday, March 27. It was expected by many to be a difficult one, and in that respect it did not disappoint. The touchy issues surfaced quickly, with the very first resolution calling for the creation of a committee to make a plan to bring all institutions of the Church under direct Church ownership.
This was a sensitive issue because it was intended to end the independence of the International Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association, Dr. Kellogg’s auxiliary. It was not a new idea. As early as June of 1902 there had been moves at the union conference level to keep newly built health facilities under Church control rather than turning them over to the Benevolent Association. Dr. Kellogg objected strenuously to all such measures. He did not believe that the health work ought to be under the jurisdiction of ministers. Really, he didn’t think it ought to have any legal association with the Church at all. He had for some time been expressing a desire that the health reform work be “undenominational.” You can imagine, then, his reaction to this move in the opposite direction.
On the afternoon of Monday, March 30, 1903 Ellen White addressed the delegates. This sermon presented the fires at the Battle Creek Sanitarium and Review and Herald Publishing House in the context of the reformation undertaken by King Josiah in the fear of the Lord’s threatened punishments for apostasy. In the immediate aftermath of the sanitarium fire she had cautioned against jumping to any conclusions about its having been a divine judgment. But after a vision on the matter two nights before this sermon she now emphatically described these calamities as coming from the hand of the Lord and urged the delegates to search out the meaning of this judgment and engage in the work of reform that it called for.
On the Thursday of that week, in response to Ellen White’s call to search out needed reform, the president of the Atlantic Union Conference presented a recommendation from the delegates of that union that the General Conference and Review and Herald offices be relocated to somewhere on the east coast of the US. Discussion of the proposal began the following morning with Daniells asking Ellen White to comment on it. Her response was that she had no specific light on whether the Atlantic Coast was necessarily the place they should be moved to, but that to move these entities out of Battle Creek was in accordance with divine instruction she had been receiving for the past fifteen or twenty years. Action on the recommendation was not taken until later in the Session, but the final decision was that these two entities should move.
The committee considering the ownership of institutions turned in its recommendation a week after the Session opened. The recommendation was that all institutions be owned directly by some level of the Church organizational structure. It was acknowledged that this would be binding on new institutions, but that the existing ones would have to be persuaded to arrange themselves to comply with this decision since the Church had no direct control over them. This recommendation initiated a rather extensive debate, during which Kellogg tried very hard to defeat it. Despite his efforts the measure was eventually passed.
Another major debate came toward the end of the Session. This one was over how the officers of the General Conference were to be elected and what the chief officer was to be called. The challenge to Daniells’ authority at the preceding Autumn Council had convinced many that the method of electing General Conference officers needed to change. In order for the executive committee to function smoothly and focus on the issues facing the Church, rather than devolving into political infighting over the leadership position, the responsibility for officer selection needed to be returned to the General Conference in Session. While they were at it, the instigators of this change sought to ratify the return to the use of “president” as the title for the chief officer. This did not go over well with Jones and his associates.
To Jones and Waggoner, who believed that the best form of organization was no organization, a step which strengthened the position of the organization’s chief officer was a step in the wrong direction. The plan to do away with the title of president and have the officers elected by the executive committee had been their particular contribution to the organizational reforms of 1901, and they were not a little bit dismayed at the proposal to do away with these changes, especially since they considered them essential to their theological view of organization.
The arguments Jones and Waggoner advanced in favor of their views on organization, however, sounded all too familiar to some of the delegates. During the course of the debates on these changes several of the senior delegates such as J. N. Loughborough and G. I. Butler pointed out that the arguments being used by Jones and Waggoner were identical to those used by the original opponents of organization from the early 1860s. They also reiterated the reasoning and inspired guidance from the Spirit of Prophesy that had defeated those arguments.
It took a different approach to silence the objections about the title for the chief officer, but here Daniells and W. C. White were ready. They simply pointed out the context of the statement from Ellen White on which Jones and Waggoner based their theory. The statement in context read, “It is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference. The work of the General Conference has extended, and some things have been made unnecessarily complicated. A want of discernment has been shown. There should be a division of the field, or some other plan should be devised, to change the present order of things…. The president of the General Conference should have the privilege of deciding who shall stand by his side as counselors” (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 342). When taken as a whole, the emphasis was clearly on the need to delegate labor, rather than a rejection of the title "president."
Jones and Waggoner weren’t actually convinced by any of these arguments, but a majority of the delegates were. These measures also passed. After the vote Jones claimed that he would support the decision of the majority, but this commitment was short-lived. It was not long before Kellogg, Jones, and Waggoner were once again in open opposition to the rest of the Church’s leadership regarding their various cherished positions.
Next: Confrontation
This was a sensitive issue because it was intended to end the independence of the International Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association, Dr. Kellogg’s auxiliary. It was not a new idea. As early as June of 1902 there had been moves at the union conference level to keep newly built health facilities under Church control rather than turning them over to the Benevolent Association. Dr. Kellogg objected strenuously to all such measures. He did not believe that the health work ought to be under the jurisdiction of ministers. Really, he didn’t think it ought to have any legal association with the Church at all. He had for some time been expressing a desire that the health reform work be “undenominational.” You can imagine, then, his reaction to this move in the opposite direction.
On the afternoon of Monday, March 30, 1903 Ellen White addressed the delegates. This sermon presented the fires at the Battle Creek Sanitarium and Review and Herald Publishing House in the context of the reformation undertaken by King Josiah in the fear of the Lord’s threatened punishments for apostasy. In the immediate aftermath of the sanitarium fire she had cautioned against jumping to any conclusions about its having been a divine judgment. But after a vision on the matter two nights before this sermon she now emphatically described these calamities as coming from the hand of the Lord and urged the delegates to search out the meaning of this judgment and engage in the work of reform that it called for.
On the Thursday of that week, in response to Ellen White’s call to search out needed reform, the president of the Atlantic Union Conference presented a recommendation from the delegates of that union that the General Conference and Review and Herald offices be relocated to somewhere on the east coast of the US. Discussion of the proposal began the following morning with Daniells asking Ellen White to comment on it. Her response was that she had no specific light on whether the Atlantic Coast was necessarily the place they should be moved to, but that to move these entities out of Battle Creek was in accordance with divine instruction she had been receiving for the past fifteen or twenty years. Action on the recommendation was not taken until later in the Session, but the final decision was that these two entities should move.
The committee considering the ownership of institutions turned in its recommendation a week after the Session opened. The recommendation was that all institutions be owned directly by some level of the Church organizational structure. It was acknowledged that this would be binding on new institutions, but that the existing ones would have to be persuaded to arrange themselves to comply with this decision since the Church had no direct control over them. This recommendation initiated a rather extensive debate, during which Kellogg tried very hard to defeat it. Despite his efforts the measure was eventually passed.
Another major debate came toward the end of the Session. This one was over how the officers of the General Conference were to be elected and what the chief officer was to be called. The challenge to Daniells’ authority at the preceding Autumn Council had convinced many that the method of electing General Conference officers needed to change. In order for the executive committee to function smoothly and focus on the issues facing the Church, rather than devolving into political infighting over the leadership position, the responsibility for officer selection needed to be returned to the General Conference in Session. While they were at it, the instigators of this change sought to ratify the return to the use of “president” as the title for the chief officer. This did not go over well with Jones and his associates.
To Jones and Waggoner, who believed that the best form of organization was no organization, a step which strengthened the position of the organization’s chief officer was a step in the wrong direction. The plan to do away with the title of president and have the officers elected by the executive committee had been their particular contribution to the organizational reforms of 1901, and they were not a little bit dismayed at the proposal to do away with these changes, especially since they considered them essential to their theological view of organization.
The arguments Jones and Waggoner advanced in favor of their views on organization, however, sounded all too familiar to some of the delegates. During the course of the debates on these changes several of the senior delegates such as J. N. Loughborough and G. I. Butler pointed out that the arguments being used by Jones and Waggoner were identical to those used by the original opponents of organization from the early 1860s. They also reiterated the reasoning and inspired guidance from the Spirit of Prophesy that had defeated those arguments.
It took a different approach to silence the objections about the title for the chief officer, but here Daniells and W. C. White were ready. They simply pointed out the context of the statement from Ellen White on which Jones and Waggoner based their theory. The statement in context read, “It is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference. The work of the General Conference has extended, and some things have been made unnecessarily complicated. A want of discernment has been shown. There should be a division of the field, or some other plan should be devised, to change the present order of things…. The president of the General Conference should have the privilege of deciding who shall stand by his side as counselors” (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 342). When taken as a whole, the emphasis was clearly on the need to delegate labor, rather than a rejection of the title "president."
Jones and Waggoner weren’t actually convinced by any of these arguments, but a majority of the delegates were. These measures also passed. After the vote Jones claimed that he would support the decision of the majority, but this commitment was short-lived. It was not long before Kellogg, Jones, and Waggoner were once again in open opposition to the rest of the Church’s leadership regarding their various cherished positions.
Next: Confrontation
Friday, July 15, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 35
Before describing the events of the 1903 General Conference Session we need to take a closer look at the motivations of the key leaders at that meeting. On one side was Jones, who was supported by Waggoner and Kellogg. On the other side was Daniells, who was supported by Prescott and Ellen White.
Jones had for a long time held a rather decided position about how the organization ought to be arranged, which was based on the concept of Christ as head of the church. He believed that the organization couldn’t have any strong top executive position because such a position would impede or be a human substitute for Christ’s headship. This was a position that he had held, along with Waggoner and Prescott, since before they began pushing for organizational change with W. C. White at the 1897 General Conference Session. Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott had been reinforced in this view when one of the testimonies from Ellen White read at the 1897 Session included a sentence which said, “It is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference.”
To Jones’s mind, the title “president” was linked to the kingly power exercised by those who had held the title in the past. He believed that to rid the Church of kingly power the title of president must also be entirely removed. This was why he, with Waggoner and Prescott, had gotten the title changed to “chairman” and made the chairman responsible to the executive committee as part of the changes made at the 1901 Session. This continued to be the view of Jones and Waggoner, but Prescott, who was working closely with Daniells in the immediate aftermath of the 1901 Session, saw the practical necessities behind reverting to the title of president and changed his position accordingly.
The logical conclusion of Jones’s and Waggoner’s interpretation of how the headship of Christ ought to affect Church organization was that there really shouldn’t be any human organization at all. They believed that if the members were truly as attuned to the promptings of the Holy Spirit as they ought to be, each would spontaneously do whatever task was needed to advance the work of the Church in cooperation with others who were following similar promptings. This position fit well with the pantheistic leanings of Kellogg, as both effectively put God inside every individual.
Daniells, on the other hand, figured it didn’t really matter if he called himself the president so long as he wasn’t trying to exercise kingly power. His position was based much more on practical considerations than abstract biblical philosophies. Daniells did not agree with Jones’s premise that the formal organization of the Church should be eliminated in favor of direct guidance from the Holy Spirit. He believed that God chose to fulfill His purposes through the formal organizational structure of the Church. And even if it were true that members ought to be so attuned to the Holy Spirit that they could act to forward the work of the Church without consultation with other humans, the reality was that they were not so connected and the work still needed to get done. For Daniells it came down to the practical question of how best to fulfill the Great Commission (“Go ye into all the world…”) using the imperfect people and resources available. Whatever system could prove to be most effective while being in line with the principles of organization found in the Bible and the Spirit of Prophesy was what he was going to go with.
We will deal with Ellen White’s position on all of this in more detail later. For the moment we will simply say that she continued to support Daniells at the 1903 Session.
Next: Showdown at the 1903 Session
Jones had for a long time held a rather decided position about how the organization ought to be arranged, which was based on the concept of Christ as head of the church. He believed that the organization couldn’t have any strong top executive position because such a position would impede or be a human substitute for Christ’s headship. This was a position that he had held, along with Waggoner and Prescott, since before they began pushing for organizational change with W. C. White at the 1897 General Conference Session. Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott had been reinforced in this view when one of the testimonies from Ellen White read at the 1897 Session included a sentence which said, “It is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference.”
To Jones’s mind, the title “president” was linked to the kingly power exercised by those who had held the title in the past. He believed that to rid the Church of kingly power the title of president must also be entirely removed. This was why he, with Waggoner and Prescott, had gotten the title changed to “chairman” and made the chairman responsible to the executive committee as part of the changes made at the 1901 Session. This continued to be the view of Jones and Waggoner, but Prescott, who was working closely with Daniells in the immediate aftermath of the 1901 Session, saw the practical necessities behind reverting to the title of president and changed his position accordingly.
The logical conclusion of Jones’s and Waggoner’s interpretation of how the headship of Christ ought to affect Church organization was that there really shouldn’t be any human organization at all. They believed that if the members were truly as attuned to the promptings of the Holy Spirit as they ought to be, each would spontaneously do whatever task was needed to advance the work of the Church in cooperation with others who were following similar promptings. This position fit well with the pantheistic leanings of Kellogg, as both effectively put God inside every individual.
Daniells, on the other hand, figured it didn’t really matter if he called himself the president so long as he wasn’t trying to exercise kingly power. His position was based much more on practical considerations than abstract biblical philosophies. Daniells did not agree with Jones’s premise that the formal organization of the Church should be eliminated in favor of direct guidance from the Holy Spirit. He believed that God chose to fulfill His purposes through the formal organizational structure of the Church. And even if it were true that members ought to be so attuned to the Holy Spirit that they could act to forward the work of the Church without consultation with other humans, the reality was that they were not so connected and the work still needed to get done. For Daniells it came down to the practical question of how best to fulfill the Great Commission (“Go ye into all the world…”) using the imperfect people and resources available. Whatever system could prove to be most effective while being in line with the principles of organization found in the Bible and the Spirit of Prophesy was what he was going to go with.
We will deal with Ellen White’s position on all of this in more detail later. For the moment we will simply say that she continued to support Daniells at the 1903 Session.
Next: Showdown at the 1903 Session
Monday, July 11, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 34
The tranquility following the 1901 General Conference Session was short-lived. It lasted through the rest of 1901, but 1902 saw a series of issues and events which were to cause conflict over organizational structure, even though most of them were not directly about structure.
One of these issues was over what title A. G. Daniells ought to use. Within a few weeks of the end of the 1901 Session Daniells had begun to refer to himself as the General Conference President, even though that title had been officially replaced by the title of Chairman of the executive committee. Daniells found this replacement title cumbersome, particularly when trying to explain his position to outside entities with whom the Church had business, so he went back to the convenient title of President. This reversion was formally agreed to by the members of the executive committee who happened to be in Battle Creek in February of 1902, but this group was not the full 25-person membership, and some of those left out of this decision took exception to it. (While they were at it, this partial executive committee also declared W. W. Prescott, who was serving as the secretary of the Foreign Mission Board, to be a vice president. This was the first time the Church had ever had a vice president.)
Another event which led to conflict was that on the night of February 18, 1902 two main buildings of the Battle Creek Sanitarium complex burned to the ground. The Battle Creek Sanitarium was under the control of the only remaining independent auxiliary, the International Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association. It was also the base of operations for the Benevolent Association’s leader, J. H. Kellogg. Kellogg immediately began envisioning rebuilding bigger and better. This concerned Church leaders because the Sanitarium was already carrying heavy debts and they did not wish to see either the Sanitarium or the Church take on more debt to fund the rebuilding. To help with the costs Kellogg proposed to donate the royalties from a book he was writing for use in a health reform campaign. This was agreed to.
During the summer of 1902 Daniells and Kellogg traveled together to Europe for some meetings being held there. While there Kellogg found land that he wanted to purchase near London to erect a new sanitarium in that area. He proposed to Daniells that the General Conference take out loans to fund this project. Daniells was seeking to institute a denomination-wide “no debt” policy. He refused to let the Church take on new debt to fund this establishment. This upset Kellogg. This was the model of expansion he had used all through the 1890’s—build on loans and convince the General Conference to assume responsibility for the debt. Daniells held firmly to his position and Kellogg returned to Battle Creek early and began talking against Daniells.
This conflict came to a head during the fall council of 1902. Kellogg had just finished writing his book, The Living Temple, with which church leaders had some substantial theological concerns. As this narrative is about organization rather than theology we won’t get into the issues associated with this book other than to say that Kellogg was adopting pantheistic views incompatible with the theological understandings of the Church. Whether or not the Church would endorse this book and consideration of the proposed no debt policy made the council an explosive one. On October 19, 1902 a small group of Church leaders, including Daniells, met with Ellen White in her home in California to discuss the issues they would face at the council. During this meeting Ellen White told Daniells to hold firm on the no debt policy.
When the council convened on November 11 Daniells made the case for his no debt policy, pointing out that by using loans to further its efforts the Church really ended up wasting large quantities of its resources to pay interest later. He further pointed out that he had been trying to raise funds to pay off the substantial debt that already existed, but that Church members were reluctant to contribute as they thought that their leaders would just run up more debt as soon as the earlier debts were eliminated. He substantiated his position with statements from Ellen White, which made clear her opposition to operating the Church on loans. After making his case Daniells proposed that the General Conference officially adopt a no debt policy. A committee was appointed to look into the matter and bring a recommendation back to the council.
Kellogg did some fuming and protesting about this, largely along the lines of needing to not impede the medical missionary work, but he failed to present a substantive argument in opposition to Daniells’ proposal. Instead, he tried to remove Daniells from chairmanship of the executive committee in favor of A. T. Jones. Jones was supporting Kellogg in his dispute with Daniells, but not because he opposed the no dept proposal. Jones objected to Daniells’ having taken back the title of General Conference President.
This procedural effort was possible for two reasons. First, under the new organizational configuration the chairman was elected by the executive committee from among its members. Second, no term of office was specified for the chairman. This was intentional; the new organizational strategy purposefully made it possible for a change of the chairmanship between General Conference Sessions whenever the committee might see fit.
The effort to replace Daniells as chairman failed, but it left the Church leadership deeply divided. The leaders in the medical work sided with Kellogg, as did Jones and Waggoner. Most of the administrators of the Church, including Prescott and W. C. White, sided with Daniells. Ellen White was not present, but the counsel she gave Daniells before the meeting makes it clear that he had her support.
A subcommittee of four that had been tasked with reviewing Kellogg’s book gave a majority report that there were no theological difficulties. (This majority was composed of Kellogg, Jones, and another doctor from the sanitarium named Paulson.) The fourth member of the subcommittee, Prescott, submitted a minority report expressing serious concerns with the theology in the book. The executive committee chose to accept the minority report and declined to endorse the book. The committee considering the no debt proposal reported back in favor of the proposal and presented language for an official policy which was approved by the council on November 21, 1902.
This conflict was decided, but it brought forward other issues which would be fought out at the 1903 General Conference Session. The new issues were whether the medical missionary work should continue to be an independent auxiliary and the need to further define how power was distributed and wielded at the General Conference.
On December 30, 1902 the Review and Herald publishing house in Battle Creek burned to the ground. The only part of the complex to survive was the West Building, which was the storehouse for completed books awaiting distribution. Ellen White had been warning of just such a catastrophe for some time; God was not pleased with the nature of many of the commercial publishing jobs they had been taking on, which included books on witchcraft, criticisms of religion, and sexually explicit material. The morning after the fire the Review and Herald board met and decided to put off any decisions about rebuilding until the 1903 General Conference Session, which was then just three months away.
Next: The Two Sides
One of these issues was over what title A. G. Daniells ought to use. Within a few weeks of the end of the 1901 Session Daniells had begun to refer to himself as the General Conference President, even though that title had been officially replaced by the title of Chairman of the executive committee. Daniells found this replacement title cumbersome, particularly when trying to explain his position to outside entities with whom the Church had business, so he went back to the convenient title of President. This reversion was formally agreed to by the members of the executive committee who happened to be in Battle Creek in February of 1902, but this group was not the full 25-person membership, and some of those left out of this decision took exception to it. (While they were at it, this partial executive committee also declared W. W. Prescott, who was serving as the secretary of the Foreign Mission Board, to be a vice president. This was the first time the Church had ever had a vice president.)
Another event which led to conflict was that on the night of February 18, 1902 two main buildings of the Battle Creek Sanitarium complex burned to the ground. The Battle Creek Sanitarium was under the control of the only remaining independent auxiliary, the International Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association. It was also the base of operations for the Benevolent Association’s leader, J. H. Kellogg. Kellogg immediately began envisioning rebuilding bigger and better. This concerned Church leaders because the Sanitarium was already carrying heavy debts and they did not wish to see either the Sanitarium or the Church take on more debt to fund the rebuilding. To help with the costs Kellogg proposed to donate the royalties from a book he was writing for use in a health reform campaign. This was agreed to.
During the summer of 1902 Daniells and Kellogg traveled together to Europe for some meetings being held there. While there Kellogg found land that he wanted to purchase near London to erect a new sanitarium in that area. He proposed to Daniells that the General Conference take out loans to fund this project. Daniells was seeking to institute a denomination-wide “no debt” policy. He refused to let the Church take on new debt to fund this establishment. This upset Kellogg. This was the model of expansion he had used all through the 1890’s—build on loans and convince the General Conference to assume responsibility for the debt. Daniells held firmly to his position and Kellogg returned to Battle Creek early and began talking against Daniells.
This conflict came to a head during the fall council of 1902. Kellogg had just finished writing his book, The Living Temple, with which church leaders had some substantial theological concerns. As this narrative is about organization rather than theology we won’t get into the issues associated with this book other than to say that Kellogg was adopting pantheistic views incompatible with the theological understandings of the Church. Whether or not the Church would endorse this book and consideration of the proposed no debt policy made the council an explosive one. On October 19, 1902 a small group of Church leaders, including Daniells, met with Ellen White in her home in California to discuss the issues they would face at the council. During this meeting Ellen White told Daniells to hold firm on the no debt policy.
When the council convened on November 11 Daniells made the case for his no debt policy, pointing out that by using loans to further its efforts the Church really ended up wasting large quantities of its resources to pay interest later. He further pointed out that he had been trying to raise funds to pay off the substantial debt that already existed, but that Church members were reluctant to contribute as they thought that their leaders would just run up more debt as soon as the earlier debts were eliminated. He substantiated his position with statements from Ellen White, which made clear her opposition to operating the Church on loans. After making his case Daniells proposed that the General Conference officially adopt a no debt policy. A committee was appointed to look into the matter and bring a recommendation back to the council.
Kellogg did some fuming and protesting about this, largely along the lines of needing to not impede the medical missionary work, but he failed to present a substantive argument in opposition to Daniells’ proposal. Instead, he tried to remove Daniells from chairmanship of the executive committee in favor of A. T. Jones. Jones was supporting Kellogg in his dispute with Daniells, but not because he opposed the no dept proposal. Jones objected to Daniells’ having taken back the title of General Conference President.
This procedural effort was possible for two reasons. First, under the new organizational configuration the chairman was elected by the executive committee from among its members. Second, no term of office was specified for the chairman. This was intentional; the new organizational strategy purposefully made it possible for a change of the chairmanship between General Conference Sessions whenever the committee might see fit.
The effort to replace Daniells as chairman failed, but it left the Church leadership deeply divided. The leaders in the medical work sided with Kellogg, as did Jones and Waggoner. Most of the administrators of the Church, including Prescott and W. C. White, sided with Daniells. Ellen White was not present, but the counsel she gave Daniells before the meeting makes it clear that he had her support.
A subcommittee of four that had been tasked with reviewing Kellogg’s book gave a majority report that there were no theological difficulties. (This majority was composed of Kellogg, Jones, and another doctor from the sanitarium named Paulson.) The fourth member of the subcommittee, Prescott, submitted a minority report expressing serious concerns with the theology in the book. The executive committee chose to accept the minority report and declined to endorse the book. The committee considering the no debt proposal reported back in favor of the proposal and presented language for an official policy which was approved by the council on November 21, 1902.
This conflict was decided, but it brought forward other issues which would be fought out at the 1903 General Conference Session. The new issues were whether the medical missionary work should continue to be an independent auxiliary and the need to further define how power was distributed and wielded at the General Conference.
On December 30, 1902 the Review and Herald publishing house in Battle Creek burned to the ground. The only part of the complex to survive was the West Building, which was the storehouse for completed books awaiting distribution. Ellen White had been warning of just such a catastrophe for some time; God was not pleased with the nature of many of the commercial publishing jobs they had been taking on, which included books on witchcraft, criticisms of religion, and sexually explicit material. The morning after the fire the Review and Herald board met and decided to put off any decisions about rebuilding until the 1903 General Conference Session, which was then just three months away.
Next: The Two Sides
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 33
The organizational changes voted by the 1901 General Conference Session, at the recommendation of the special committee, were dramatic and far-reaching. They didn’t do away with any of the basic components of organization that had existed up to that point. The local conferences continued, as did the General Conference, and all of the functions of the auxiliaries. What did change was how all these units worked together.
The first change was that the decision of the 1897 General Conference Session to organize union conferences everywhere it was feasible was finally implemented—on the spot. Six new union conferences were organized during the Session. This process included deciding territorial boundaries, preparing constitutions for each union, and electing officers. To accomplish all this, the special committee set up a substantial number of subcommittees to handle the various technical details, including a Committee on Organization and a Committee on Constitutions and Plans.
The second change was that all but one of the auxiliaries were discontinued as independent entities. Instead, they were integrated into the conference structure along the South African Conference model, with each auxiliary function being represented by a “secretary,” who answered to the executive committee. In other words, they now became the integrated departments we know them as today. The one exception to this integration was the International Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association.
The third change was to the way power was handled within the General Conference. The position of President of the General Conference was eliminated. In its place the executive committee was enlarged to 25 members (six of which were to be appointed by the International Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association), and these 25 chose from among themselves a chairman who would lead the organization. At the insistence of the delegates, the executive committee chose its officers before the Session concluded. A. G. Daniells was elected as its chairman.
The fourth change was that ownership of most of the institutions that the General Conference controlled was transferred to the newly created unions. This lightened the administrative load of the General Conference and allowed decisions for these institutions to be made by individuals who were much closer to the issues. There were a few exceptions to this change, as well. These included Battle Creek College (now Andrews University) and Oakwood Industrial School (now Oakwood University). This established a pattern of school ownership which still continues; elementary schools are owned by local churches, high schools are owned by conferences, and colleges/universities are typically owned by unions, with a few exceptions where colleges and universities are owned by the General Conference.
The fifth change was less visible but no less significant; new plans were laid for how the money would flow between organizational levels. This resulted in more money being made available to fund missionary work.
The sixth major change pertained to the Mission Board. It too was brought under the control of the General Conference executive committee, but not as a department. The Mission Board continued to exist in name, but all of its members were chosen and overseen by the executive committee. The idea was to gradually phase out the Mission Board as a separate entity as the executive committee took over its functions.
During the 1901 Session Ellen White informed the leadership of Battle Creek College that she had for them the inspired instruction that the institution ought to move out of Battle Creek and into the country, where the students would not be so susceptible to the distractions of city life. This directive was immediately accepted with a vote to take such action. In the fall of 1901 the college opened the new school year in its new location, Berrien Springs, MI, under the new name of Emmanuel Missionary College.
Ellen White also gave special instruction to the Review and Herald Publishing House and the Battle Creek Sanitarium about changes that were needed in their attitudes and ways of conducting business, but in these cases the advice was ignored. These were to be sources of future distress for the Church, but everyone, including Ellen White, was happy with the nature and extent of the changes accomplished by the 1901 Session in the area of general organizational reform.
Next: Fresh Trouble
The first change was that the decision of the 1897 General Conference Session to organize union conferences everywhere it was feasible was finally implemented—on the spot. Six new union conferences were organized during the Session. This process included deciding territorial boundaries, preparing constitutions for each union, and electing officers. To accomplish all this, the special committee set up a substantial number of subcommittees to handle the various technical details, including a Committee on Organization and a Committee on Constitutions and Plans.
The second change was that all but one of the auxiliaries were discontinued as independent entities. Instead, they were integrated into the conference structure along the South African Conference model, with each auxiliary function being represented by a “secretary,” who answered to the executive committee. In other words, they now became the integrated departments we know them as today. The one exception to this integration was the International Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association.
The third change was to the way power was handled within the General Conference. The position of President of the General Conference was eliminated. In its place the executive committee was enlarged to 25 members (six of which were to be appointed by the International Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association), and these 25 chose from among themselves a chairman who would lead the organization. At the insistence of the delegates, the executive committee chose its officers before the Session concluded. A. G. Daniells was elected as its chairman.
The fourth change was that ownership of most of the institutions that the General Conference controlled was transferred to the newly created unions. This lightened the administrative load of the General Conference and allowed decisions for these institutions to be made by individuals who were much closer to the issues. There were a few exceptions to this change, as well. These included Battle Creek College (now Andrews University) and Oakwood Industrial School (now Oakwood University). This established a pattern of school ownership which still continues; elementary schools are owned by local churches, high schools are owned by conferences, and colleges/universities are typically owned by unions, with a few exceptions where colleges and universities are owned by the General Conference.
The fifth change was less visible but no less significant; new plans were laid for how the money would flow between organizational levels. This resulted in more money being made available to fund missionary work.
The sixth major change pertained to the Mission Board. It too was brought under the control of the General Conference executive committee, but not as a department. The Mission Board continued to exist in name, but all of its members were chosen and overseen by the executive committee. The idea was to gradually phase out the Mission Board as a separate entity as the executive committee took over its functions.
During the 1901 Session Ellen White informed the leadership of Battle Creek College that she had for them the inspired instruction that the institution ought to move out of Battle Creek and into the country, where the students would not be so susceptible to the distractions of city life. This directive was immediately accepted with a vote to take such action. In the fall of 1901 the college opened the new school year in its new location, Berrien Springs, MI, under the new name of Emmanuel Missionary College.
Ellen White also gave special instruction to the Review and Herald Publishing House and the Battle Creek Sanitarium about changes that were needed in their attitudes and ways of conducting business, but in these cases the advice was ignored. These were to be sources of future distress for the Church, but everyone, including Ellen White, was happy with the nature and extent of the changes accomplished by the 1901 Session in the area of general organizational reform.
Next: Fresh Trouble
Friday, July 1, 2011
Principle Over Form
Those who have advocated organizational change at Takoma Park have not gone any further in their argument for the legitimacy of change than to say that the Church Manual is only a guideline, and therefore they may bend its specifications to “fit their situation.” This argument is shallow. It gives no consideration to how the organization called for in the Manual came to be, what divine instruction exists on the subject, or how such instruction has been applied to achieve the organizational system we have now. We having been providing the historical background for these considerations in Our Roots—a process which is ongoing—but we have now proceeded far enough to begin the analysis.
What conclusions about church organizational structure shall we draw from the guidance of Ellen White? Our Roots will shortly show what conclusions were drawn in 1901; but what lasting impact should this council have on the organizational questions we face today? Can the organizational system be changed at all? If changes can be made, how should that happen? Also, what particular changes, if any, ought to be made?
Ellen White gave no specific directions about the organizational form. Her observation in her opening remarks to the 1901 Session was that, “According to the light that has been given me—and just how it is to be accomplished I can not say—greater strength must be brought into the managing force of the Conference.” While she declined to dictate form, she did have plenty to say about the nature of the change that was needed. She continued, “But this will not be done by intrusting responsibilities to men who have had light poured upon them year after year for the last ten or fifteen years, and yet have not heeded the light that God has given them. The word of God is to be our guide.”
The day before, Ellen White had spoken similarly in the college library, “God wants us to know what it means to work on the principles of heaven. He wants those in the office to know what it means for everyone to stand in his lot and place obeying the words, ‘Add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity’ (2 Peter 1:5-7).”
The emphasis of Ellen White’s messages was clearly on the principles to be followed, rather than the specific form the organizational structure was to take. This does not mean, however, that any form of structure is acceptable. The divine instruction we see here is that we may choose the structure that best suits our needs—while following the heavenly principles lain down on this subject.
Here we must be very careful to be perfectly clear. We have often heard the argument that the governance system we have had is faulty, outdated, or otherwise inferior and that we must bring in a new system based on new, more effective principles. A cursory examination of the various counsels given through Ellen White could even seem to support such an argument. There are many places where she denounces the wrong principles being employed in the work of the church. But a closer look points in another direction.
A statement Ellen White made in the letter written to the 1893 General Conference Session is very illuminating on this point, “I learn that it is proposed by some of our brethren to do away with the organization of some, at least, of the branches of our work. No doubt what has led them to propose this step is that in some of our organizations the machinery has been made so complicated as really to hinder the work. This, however, is not an argument against organization, but against the perversion of it.” This last sentence holds the key. The problem is not that the organizational structure was based on wrong (or even ineffective) principles. The problem is that those in leadership positions had allowed perverted, corrupted principles to creep in and replace the heavenly ones. Once this had occurred the organization was indeed operating on wrong principles, but not because it had been based on them to begin with. Correcting the problem, then, requires returning to the original, pure principles, not substituting entirely new ones.
This concept of returning to the heavenly principles was stressed by Ellen White in the College Library Address, “We have heard much about everything moving in the regular lines. When we see that the "regular lines" are purified and refined, that they bear the mold of the God of heaven, then it will be time to endorse these lines. But when we see that message after message given by God has been received and accepted, yet no change has been made, we know that new power must be brought into the regular lines. The management of the regular lines must be entirely changed, newly organized.”
So what exactly are the principles on which our governance structure should be based? Let’s go back to the letter to the 1893 Session, “It is nearly forty years since organization was introduced among us as a people. I was one of the number who had an experience in establishing it from the first. I know the difficulties that had to be met, the evils which it was designed to correct, and I have watched its influence in connection with the growth of the cause. At an early stage in the work, God gave us special light upon this point, and this light, together with the lessons that experience has taught us, should be carefully considered.”
We are pointed back to the principles which guided the original effort to organize the Church. As we have already seen, those principles were open discussion, consensus decisions, representative government, transparency, simplicity, utility, stewardship, and coordinated effort. In the College Library Address Ellen White simplified this list even further. “This is what alarms me. I see that unless there is more tenderness, more compassion, more of the love of God, the blessing of heaven will be withdrawn.” These are the principles which should still be driving the workings of our organizational structure. If they are not, like the Church at the turn of the last century, the change we must make is to abandon our perverted principles and return to these heavenly ones.
It is significant to note at this point that while macro changes to the Church structure (changes creating, defining/redefining, or eliminating levels of, or organizations within, Church governance) have occurred with some regularity over the life of the Church, micro changes (changes to governance of the local congregation) are exceedingly rare. We will cover this point more thoroughly when we cover in Our Roots the publication of the first edition of the Church Manual, but the basics of organization at the local level have undergone very little alteration over the years. We would suspect that this is due in large part to the fact that the elements of organization at the local level have been officially adopted only after experimentation and experience have proven them to be best practices. This reduces both the need and advisability of frequently changing them.
When the conclusion is reached that a change of form (macro or micro) is indeed needed there is clear guidance on the right way to go about it. If change is to be made it should be made by the whole of the Church body in full open view during the official meetings of the Church. “Do not wait until the conference is over and then gather up the forces to see what can be done. Let us see what can be done now. Find out what power and intelligence there is that can be brought into the conference. Let all unite in taking hold of the work intelligently. This is what is needed” (College Library Address).
What conclusions about church organizational structure shall we draw from the guidance of Ellen White? Our Roots will shortly show what conclusions were drawn in 1901; but what lasting impact should this council have on the organizational questions we face today? Can the organizational system be changed at all? If changes can be made, how should that happen? Also, what particular changes, if any, ought to be made?
Ellen White gave no specific directions about the organizational form. Her observation in her opening remarks to the 1901 Session was that, “According to the light that has been given me—and just how it is to be accomplished I can not say—greater strength must be brought into the managing force of the Conference.” While she declined to dictate form, she did have plenty to say about the nature of the change that was needed. She continued, “But this will not be done by intrusting responsibilities to men who have had light poured upon them year after year for the last ten or fifteen years, and yet have not heeded the light that God has given them. The word of God is to be our guide.”
The day before, Ellen White had spoken similarly in the college library, “God wants us to know what it means to work on the principles of heaven. He wants those in the office to know what it means for everyone to stand in his lot and place obeying the words, ‘Add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity’ (2 Peter 1:5-7).”
The emphasis of Ellen White’s messages was clearly on the principles to be followed, rather than the specific form the organizational structure was to take. This does not mean, however, that any form of structure is acceptable. The divine instruction we see here is that we may choose the structure that best suits our needs—while following the heavenly principles lain down on this subject.
Here we must be very careful to be perfectly clear. We have often heard the argument that the governance system we have had is faulty, outdated, or otherwise inferior and that we must bring in a new system based on new, more effective principles. A cursory examination of the various counsels given through Ellen White could even seem to support such an argument. There are many places where she denounces the wrong principles being employed in the work of the church. But a closer look points in another direction.
A statement Ellen White made in the letter written to the 1893 General Conference Session is very illuminating on this point, “I learn that it is proposed by some of our brethren to do away with the organization of some, at least, of the branches of our work. No doubt what has led them to propose this step is that in some of our organizations the machinery has been made so complicated as really to hinder the work. This, however, is not an argument against organization, but against the perversion of it.” This last sentence holds the key. The problem is not that the organizational structure was based on wrong (or even ineffective) principles. The problem is that those in leadership positions had allowed perverted, corrupted principles to creep in and replace the heavenly ones. Once this had occurred the organization was indeed operating on wrong principles, but not because it had been based on them to begin with. Correcting the problem, then, requires returning to the original, pure principles, not substituting entirely new ones.
This concept of returning to the heavenly principles was stressed by Ellen White in the College Library Address, “We have heard much about everything moving in the regular lines. When we see that the "regular lines" are purified and refined, that they bear the mold of the God of heaven, then it will be time to endorse these lines. But when we see that message after message given by God has been received and accepted, yet no change has been made, we know that new power must be brought into the regular lines. The management of the regular lines must be entirely changed, newly organized.”
So what exactly are the principles on which our governance structure should be based? Let’s go back to the letter to the 1893 Session, “It is nearly forty years since organization was introduced among us as a people. I was one of the number who had an experience in establishing it from the first. I know the difficulties that had to be met, the evils which it was designed to correct, and I have watched its influence in connection with the growth of the cause. At an early stage in the work, God gave us special light upon this point, and this light, together with the lessons that experience has taught us, should be carefully considered.”
We are pointed back to the principles which guided the original effort to organize the Church. As we have already seen, those principles were open discussion, consensus decisions, representative government, transparency, simplicity, utility, stewardship, and coordinated effort. In the College Library Address Ellen White simplified this list even further. “This is what alarms me. I see that unless there is more tenderness, more compassion, more of the love of God, the blessing of heaven will be withdrawn.” These are the principles which should still be driving the workings of our organizational structure. If they are not, like the Church at the turn of the last century, the change we must make is to abandon our perverted principles and return to these heavenly ones.
It is significant to note at this point that while macro changes to the Church structure (changes creating, defining/redefining, or eliminating levels of, or organizations within, Church governance) have occurred with some regularity over the life of the Church, micro changes (changes to governance of the local congregation) are exceedingly rare. We will cover this point more thoroughly when we cover in Our Roots the publication of the first edition of the Church Manual, but the basics of organization at the local level have undergone very little alteration over the years. We would suspect that this is due in large part to the fact that the elements of organization at the local level have been officially adopted only after experimentation and experience have proven them to be best practices. This reduces both the need and advisability of frequently changing them.
When the conclusion is reached that a change of form (macro or micro) is indeed needed there is clear guidance on the right way to go about it. If change is to be made it should be made by the whole of the Church body in full open view during the official meetings of the Church. “Do not wait until the conference is over and then gather up the forces to see what can be done. Let us see what can be done now. Find out what power and intelligence there is that can be brought into the conference. Let all unite in taking hold of the work intelligently. This is what is needed” (College Library Address).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)