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