Our Roots, Pt. 40

The pair of pamphlets that came out in early 1906 brought the organizational issues the church leaders had been dealing with to the attention of the general membership. The issues of Kellogg's pantheism had already been dealt with quite directly by the statements made by Ellen White, but Jones's theories on organization hadn't received the same level of attention.

With some, Jones's ideas on organization took root. In January of 1907 Ellen White sent this counsel to a pastor who was pulling his church away from the larger organizational structure and toward a congregational model of governance, "You have lost your bearings concerning many things, and cherish some views that bear the same mark of spiritual disease that has led to the disaffection at Battle Creek. And the enemy is working through you to spoil the flock of God. The Lord bids me say to you, Stop right where you are.

"You are severely tempted, and for some time have been pursuing a course that will impair your future usefulness. The Lord has given you freedom of speech that you might present the truth before the people. But you have been losing the grace of God out of your heart. You have taken a draught of a mixture prepared by the tempter.

"I do not want you to destroy yourself. Battle Creek is not the place where you will get light. The work being done there does not bear the signature of the Divine. Another spirit has come in and taken possession of human minds. The Lord God of Israel will surely punish the men who have set at naught His counsel. The Word of God tells us that just such things would come in these last days" (Letter 44, 1907).

In this counsel Ellen White made no distinction between the pantheism of Kellogg and the organizational extremes of Jones in warning against the spiritually diseased views coming out of Battle Creek. The two views ("God is inside us" followed by "the only organizational leadership Adventists should recognize is the voice of God inside us") were both dangerous to the very existence of the Adventist Church. The first view would change God from a Being to a pervading Essence, and if God is not a literal Being then none of the actions which Christ (or any other member of the Godhead) engaged in as literal Beings can have actually taken place. In short, the whole concept of sin and salvation is thrown out the window. The second view, by making all church members accountable to nothing but their personal whims, destroys all possibility of united corporate action in fulfilling the fundamental function of the Church—the spread of the gospel.

Jones did make allowance for a formal organization at the congregational level, since the New Testament clearly describes certain specific officers that should exist within each local congregation. But his theory on that seems to have been that those positions were only a concession because people weren't adequately advanced spiritually to do completely without formal organization. Ellen White's objections were not lessened by this concession. A congregational model of governance was just as bad as no governance at all so far as the need for coordinated global effort in soul-winning was concerned.

The conflict was heightened even further by the attempts of Jones to take legal control of the church building in Battle Creek—the Tabernacle—away from the denomination. This attempt was possible because the Tabernacle had been established before the system of conference ownership of local church properties was instituted. The Tabernacle was owned by the local congregation, and Jones intended to sway the congregation to give the property to the Battle Creek Sanitarium or otherwise separate it from the denomination.

Ellen White described why this was a problem in a letter to a man in the Battle Creek congregation written on February 4, 1907, "According to the light given me, unless a decided stand is taken to safeguard the Tabernacle in Battle Creek, theories will be presented in it that will dishonor God and His cause. I have been shown that if you understood the matter you would be as decided as I am in the testimony you bear.

"I must act in accordance with the light the Lord has given me; and I say to you that Elder A. T. Jones and Dr. Kellogg will make every effort possible to get possession of the Tabernacle, in order that in it they may present their doctrines. We must not allow that house to be used for the promulgation of error until our work is done in Battle Creek. The Tabernacle was built by the Seventh-day Adventist people. It is their property, and their loyal representatives should control it. On this question I will stand firm, and if you and others will take a decided stand with us, you will be doing that which God requires of you at this time.

"We must make sure the control of the Tabernacle, for powerful testimonies are to be borne in it in favor of the truth. This is the word of the Lord to you and to others. Elder A. T. Jones will work in every possible way to get possession of this house, and if he can do so he will present in it theories that should never be heard. I know whereof I speak in this matter, and if you could have seen the end from the beginning, if you had believed the warnings that have been given, you would have moved understandingly" (Letter 38, 1907).

This effort by Jones and Kellogg was eventually thwarted, but this potentially worst case scenario reveals the value of the handful of limitations on congregational autonomy imposed by conferences in the Adventist organizational structure. These limitations are 1) ownership of all local properties by the conference, 2) hiring, paying, firing, and other pastoral management decisions administered by the conference, and 3) required compliance with the stipulations of the Church Manual. Without these limitations the Church at large would have no recourse for dealing with situations in which some local leader (pastor or lay) took the congregation down a doctrinal or administrative path contrary to the positions of the denomination.

It was while all of this was going on that Daniells issued his series of articles in the Review and Herald tracing the origins of formal organization in the Adventist Church. Articles one through fourteen in this series we have already presented here in Our Roots. Article 15, which we will present in our next post in this series, applied the history lesson to the question of whether or not the Church should have any formal organization. Pointing to the way in which Moses organized the Israelites in the wilderness, he made the case that it has always been God's intention for His people to have a formal, visible organizational structure. Between the running of the 14^th and 15^th articles in the Daniells series on organization the Review and Herald ran a two part series by T. E. Bowen which examined church organization in the New Testament. Given its significance in debunking Jones's argument that the New Testament didn't provide for any organization beyond the local level we will present Bowen's material after the last article in the Daniells series.

On November 19, 1907 this conflict reached a decision point when the Battle Creek congregation disfellowshipped Dr. Kellogg. Jones also was eventually disfellowshipped, but not until 1909.

Next: Organization—No. 15