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).