Our Roots, Pt. 47

The first edition of the Church Manual was published in 1932. The preface of this edition describes the reasons for, and processes of, its creation:

As the work of the church has grown and spread into many lands, it has become increasingly evident that a Manual on church government is needed to set forth and preserve our denominational practices and polity. An ever-increasing number of men are being called into positions of responsibility as ministers and church officers. To all these a work of this kind should prove helpful in the administration of church work.

Previous efforts have been made by different writers to meet the long-felt need by publishing books or pamphlets on the work of the church and the duties of church officers. These efforts have been helpful. Some of the material thus produced has been utilized in preparing this volume.

This Manual has been prepared at the request of the General Conference Committee by Elder J. L. McElhany, vice-president of the General Conference for North America. Over a period of several years, by extended correspondence, by attendance at scores of workers' and church officers' meetings, presidents' councils, and general meetings, he has gathered the material and put it into this form. This book has been carefully edited by a committee especially chosen for their fitness and experience in such matters.

Both the Bible and experience teach that order and system are necessary in carrying on the work of the church. "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 1 Cor. 14: 33. "Let all things be done decently and in order." Verse 40.

To this agree also the following quotations from the Spirit of prophecy: "We want to hold the lines evenly, that there shall be no breaking down of the system of regulation and order. In this way license shall not be given to disorderly elements to control the work at this time. We are living in a time when order, system, and unity of action are most essential." Testimonies to Ministers," p. 228.

"The church of Christ is in constant peril. Satan is seeking to destroy the people of God, and one man's mind, one man's judgment, is not sufficient to be trusted. Christ would have His followers brought together in church capacity, observing order, having rules and discipline, and all subject one to another, esteeming others better than themselves. Union and confidence are essential to the prosperity of the church. If each member of the church feels at liberty to move independently of the others, taking his own peculiar course, how can the church be in any safety in the hour of danger and peril? The prosperity and very existence of a church depend upon the prompt, united action and mutual confidence of its members." —"Testimonies for the Church," Vol. Ill, p. 445. In the hope that this Manual will prove a blessing to all our churches, it is sent forth as a guide in matters of church administration.

GENERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.

From the beginning, the Church Manual was explicit regarding the relationships between the various levels of organization and where ultimate power within the denomination resided.

“General Conference Action Regarding Relationship Between Organisations.—‘The General Conference is the highest organization in the administration of our worldwide work, ofttimes creating subordinate organizations to promote specific interests in various sections of the world; it is therefore understood that all subordinate organizations and institutions throughout the world will recognize the General Conference in session, and the Executive Committee between sessions, as the highest authority, under God, among us. When differences arise in or between organizations and institutions, appeal to the next higher organization is proper till it reaches the General Conference in session, or the Executive Committee in full council.’” (Church Manual, 1st Edition, p.9)

It has also been clear from the beginning that while a certain amount of regional adaptation was acceptable in order to meet unique local needs, such adaptation was to be duly approved and consistent within the given area.

“Division Committees May Modify Plans to Meet Local Conditions.— In mission lands it sometimes becomes advisable for certain modifications in general plans and methods of church work to be adopted to meet local conditions. Where this seems necessary, the division committee should pass upon such modifications, and recommend the same to their respective fields, so that in each division unit there may be uniformity of procedure.” (Church Manual, 1st Edition, p.16)

And what of the content of the Manual? The subjects it covers have remained largely the same, though what it says about them has changed in some particulars from time to time. For example, the first edition specified that only ordained ministers could perform weddings. That has since been enlarged to include licensed ministers and ordained local elders. The first edition also refused to sanction divorce for any cause other than adultery. Today’s Manual also recognizes abuse as a legitimate reason for divorce, as it also breaks the covenant of trust between spouses. Most sections of the first edition were largely a succession of quotes from the Spirit of Prophesy on the various subjects. Later Manuals spend more space explaining how the Church applies the quoted statements.

Adjustments such as these can be made from time to time because the Manual was designed to be a document that could change. At the time it was created it represented the best practices of church operation from the 70 years of the denomination’s existence, and it grows as that body of experience grows. At each General Conference Session a new edition of the Manual is approved which incorporates the worthy recommendations for additions or adjustments made since the previous Session. This means that the process provided for changing the Church Manual is more of an evolution than a revolution.

The Church Manual is not the Bible. It is a rulebook. Like the rules or laws of any society it can be changed through proper processes as the society sees fit to make such changes. But, also like the laws of any civil society, the members of the Adventist Church are expected to adhere to those rules as they exist at any given moment, unless they can be shown to conflict with the Bible.

Next: The Current Worldwide Situation

Our Roots, Pt. 46

The next General Conference Session, which should have taken place in 1917, was delayed by the difficulties posed by World War I until 1918. In the five years between 1913 and 1918 the Asiatic Division Mission had been reorganized into the Asiatic Division Conference and the South American Division Conference had been formed. These were officially accepted into the General Conference as the 1918 Session began, but they didn’t last long.

Due largely to the power the North American Division Conference had wielded in the previous five years, the General Conference had decided that Division Conferences as independent legal entities were too big and too strong for the good of the worldwide church. The Europeans, who had started the whole idea of Division Conferences, had been prevented by the hostilities of World War I from fully realizing a functional Division Conference. The Asiatic and South American Division Conferences seem to have been unremarkable one way or another. But after forming the North American Division Conference the General Conference found itself separated from the bulk of its fundraising and human resources. (At that time North America still contained the vast majority of the denomination’s population.) These resources were now controlled by the Division, which had a strong, independent leadership. This left the General Conference feeling that it had to answer to the North American Division, rather than the other way around. It also raised concerns that such a powerful sub-unit could entirely break away from the denomination, fracturing worldwide identity, unity, and mission.

To rectify this power issue all of the Division Conferences were discontinued at the 1918 General Conference Session. In place of these independent legal entities, new legal sub-units of the General Conference were created to oversee the various sections of the world field. The Divisions became “the General Conference in” a certain area. This was different from what had been before because under the previous system the division conferences had answered to, and had their officers chosen by, their own territorial constituency. Under the new system the divisions answered to the General Conference and had their officers chosen for them (with input from representatives of the territory) by the worldwide constituency during General Conference Sessions.

But even this constriction of power didn’t satisfy the General Conference where the North American Division was concerned. The General Conference wanted unimpeded control of the resources in North America. So while the North American Division would continue to exist in name it would have no separate identity from the General Conference for the next 60 years or so. A vice president of the General Conference was assigned to administer the business of the North American Division and all departmental business pertaining to North America was handled directly by the departments of the General Conference. It was not until the 1980s that the North American Division was allowed to gradually separate itself from the General Conference in terms of personnel and budget so as to attain the same level of independent function granted to the other divisions.

Next: The Church Manual

Where Are We Going?

The former General Conference president, Jan Paulsen, recently wrote a book entitled Where are We Going? (published by Pacific Press, 2011) in which he gives his perspective on a variety of issues within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Two portions of this book particularly caught our interest. One was a description of seven qualities of outstanding Adventist leaders, and the other was an examination of the place of loyalty in the Adventist Church. As both of these subjects are germane to the themes of this blog we would like to quote a few excerpts from this book for general consideration.

From pages 30-36:

1. Outstanding Adventist leaders have transparent motives.

…The questions we must ask ourselves are, What is it that drives me to take this particular stand? Is it a clear “Thus saith the Lord”? Am I sure? Is this corroborated broadly by me colleagues in leadership who have similarly understood the Lord, or am I motivated by a desire to continue doing what we’ve always done so I won’t rock the boat? Am I thinking of this in terms of a “pay time” for a deal I’ve made with some group or some segment of the church? Am I pandering to a vocal or powerful part of my congregation? Am I being led by my desire to assert that I’m in charge, and this is the way I like it? …

2. Outstanding Adventist leaders have nothing to prove. I like the advice an experienced leader once gave me: “You’re in charge as long as you don’t have to prove it.” By this test, many a leader fails. We’ve all encountered spiritual dictators whose style of leadership has become more self-assertive than servantlike. These are leaders who’ve failed to understand that their election was not the coronation of an absolute monarch. …

3. Outstanding Adventist leaders “read” the community. It makes no difference whether one’s leadership is in the local congregation or at the world headquarters, good leaders will be able to read the pulse of the community they have been asked to lead. …

True communication takes place only in the absence of fear. Do our colleagues feel safe when they’re talking to us? Do we keep their confidence? Do church members feel that they can express to us without reserve their misgivings, their concerns, and their hopes? It’s more important for church leaders to pay attention to what others are saying than it is for them to speak. …

4. Outstanding Adventist leaders have the humility to be led. I’ve had my assumptions about effective leadership challenged, shattered, and remade many times over, but, through the years, I’ve learned that the most significant ingredient of successful leadership in our church is the humility to let God’s Spirit lead.

Spiritual leading is an imprecise concept. How do we test for it? What does it look like? Is it a private, mystical process?

In this, as in all matters of faith, we shouldn’t spiritualize the experience of the Spirit’s leading to such an extent that we leave the intellect barren. The risks are too many. God has given us our intellects and our capacities to understand, and He expects us to use them even in matters of the Spirit, so we can find safe ground to stand on. The Spirit and the mind don’t occupy two different worlds. They belong together, and a leader owes it to God and to his people to make every effort to hold them together. …

Private prayer, meditation, and study are indeed absolutely critical, but when it comes to identifying the Spirit’s leading, wise leaders will also reach out for the counsel of their colleagues. …

5. Outstanding Adventist leaders can handle change.

…People who can’t understand the implications of change and deal with it within our church’s framework of unchanging values and truths cannot lead. Nothing stands still, whether within the dynamics of a local church or across the grand sweep of our twenty-five-million-strong family. If we’re breathing, we’re experiencing change in some form or other. …

6. Outstanding Adventist leaders realize they’re not always right. No church pastor of administrator knows or understands everything. …

Every leader, no matter how broad his or her background and experience, will eventually encounter a challenge or proposal or opportunity they know little about. At this point, mature leaders, who have a fair idea of their own limits, will reach out for more information and seek counsel widely, and they will be genuinely open to new and different ways of thinking.

7. Outstanding Adventist leaders are faithful.

…I know of no criteria more important in an Adventist leader than humility and faithfulness. Nothing—education, professional skills, speaking skills, “pedigree,” or anything else—will compensate for the lack of these two. Some people will be disqualified by their arrogance, their insensitivity and harshness, their lack of compassion for the frailty of the human condition, their inclination to sit in hasty judgment on the spirituality of some of their fellow travelers, their inability to love people with multiple shortcomings, their gone-astray theology, or—the list has virtually no end.

But when we submit in humility to the trust and choice of those who have elected us, and we vow to remain faithful to God, we’ve met the most basic qualifications for church leadership.

From pages 74 and 75:

When it comes to creating an environment that draws out the best in our colleagues, I believe there are two values of critical importance: trust and freedom.

You might ask, “What about loyalty? Shouldn’t this value also be included?

I think not. In the unique environment of church leadership, the crucial question is loyalty to whom and to what? In the business world, the leadership team is tied to the chief executive officer (CEO), who determines the direction, calls the shots, and is the one everyone expects will set the pace. But the church is not a business, and elected leaders in the church are not CEOs. The memberships of executive committees and boards collectively take that role. Elected church leaders are, quite simply, the servants of the Lord and His people. They have accepted a trust and a privilege, not a right or an entitlement. Church leaders who forget this basic truth and who expect personal loyalty from their associates are misguided and can’t be trusted to lead.

Let me be clear: I’m not suggesting that we’re justified in undermining those who’ve been given leadership assignments. I’m saying, instead, that when we talk about loyalty, we should all understand that the church is the body of Christ, and our allegiance and devotion belongs wholly to Him. …

A wise teacher cautioned me as a young theology professor, “Beware of gathering disciples unto yourself.” He was right. It’s a profoundly risky business in the ministries of the church to establish very close personal attachments, which in turn can so easily lead to intellectual and spiritual dependence that can border on idolatry. …

If you’ve reached the point where you both supply and evaluate the thoughts, ideas, and values of your associates, you’ve gone far beyond the boundaries of appropriate leadership. You must change. Should your convictions or personality not let you do that, you should, for the good of the church and the honor of Christ, step aside and let someone else take the lead.

Our Roots, Pt.45

The next significant development in the organization of Adventist church structure took place at the 1913 General Conference Session. But to properly explain this development we need to backtrack a little and cover the organizational developments in Europe since 1901.

As described back in Our Roots, Pt. 28, at the 1897 General Conference Session three separate “General Conferences” were formed in an effort to decentralize decision-making within the Church. The only place this change really took root was in Europe. The leaders in Australasia already had a functional union conference, and having themselves called a General Conference didn’t really make a difference in how they did business. The leaders in North America continued to function as if their General Conference was in charge of the rest of the world field, so the change didn’t really make a difference to them either. But it did make a difference for Europe.

The Europeans had been wanting some self-government, and were happy to have their own General Conference. After the reorganization of the overall General Conference in 1901 the Europeans reorganized their General Conference in the same manner (absorbing the auxiliaries). The overall General Conference paid little attention to the European General Conference during the Kellogg/Jones crisis. By 1907, however, things had quieted down and the overall General Conference had concluded that there really couldn’t be two General Conferences.

During a meeting of the overall General Conference executive committee held in Gland, Switzerland, Daniells and the other General Conference officers convinced their European brethren to discontinue their General Conference. The Europeans finally agreed to this for the sake of church unity, but they weren’t happy about it. In place of a General Conference they were given a vice president of the General Conference to oversee the European territory, along with a secretary and a treasurer.

Starting in 1911, the European leaders began agitating for the creation of a new level of church organization—the Division Conference. After running the idea through several preliminary meetings in 1912 and 1913 they presented their request to form the European Division Conference at the 1913 General Conference Session. In making this request the Europeans made it clear that they thought similar Division Conferences could eventually be established in other areas of the world (such as Asia) whose remoteness from General Conference headquarters made it necessary to have greater local decision-making authority, but that they didn’t think such a structure would be needed in North America. The subject was referred to a committee for consideration, with the understanding that the committee would report back on the matter before the close of the Session.

The committee reported back to the Session on May 21, 1913. It recommended approval of the European Division Conference, and proposed a constitution for this new body. The proposal was set aside for a day to give the delegates time to look it over thoroughly. Later that same day it was pointed out that that day was the 50th anniversary of the original formation of the General Conference back in 1863. At that thought the delegation briefly considered going ahead with the vote on the creation of the Division Conference that same day as a sort of celebratory gesture, but they eventually decided that the extra time really was needed to consider the proposal and that its merely have been presented on the anniversary was celebration enough.

The next day, May 22, 1913, the proposal for a European Division Conference was duly considered and approved. The Europeans figured the subject of Division Conferences was then concluded for the time being, but a certain amount of “me too-ism” kicked in at that point. On May 26 formation of the North American Division Conference was proposed, and the Asiatic Division Mission was proposed on May 30 (the difference between a conference and a mission being that a conference is self-supporting and a mission is not). Both were approved.

There was another item of business at that Session which was not particularly related to structure, but is interesting to this narrative nonetheless. Our Roots, Pt. 40 featured some advice given by Ellen White to a pastor who was leading his congregation away from the organized church structure in favor of congregationalism. That pastor and congregation had continued on that path and separated from the denomination, but on May 30, 1913 the pastor and his congregation presented a formal request to the Session to return to membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The request was received joyfully and referred to the local conference, since conferences are responsible for handling the admission of entire churches into membership.

Next: Divisions Revisited

Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 34

[Manuscript read before the delegates at the General Conference, Washington, D. C., May 30, 1909.]

"The Spirit of Independence

"Before leaving Australia, and since coming to this country, I have been instructed that there is a great work to be done in America. Those who were in the work at the beginning are passing away. Only a few of the pioneers of the cause now remain among us. Many of the heavy burdens formerly borne by men of long experience are now falling upon younger men.

"This transfer of responsibilities to laborers whose experience is more or less limited is attended with some dangers against which we need to guard. The world is filled with strife for the supremacy. The spirit of pulling away from fellow laborers, the spirit of disorganization, is in the very air we breathe. By some, all efforts to establish order are regarded as dangerous—as a restriction of personal liberty, and hence to be feared as popery. These deceived souls regard it a virtue to boast of their freedom to think and act independently. They declare that they will not take any man’s say-so, that they are amenable to no man. I have been instructed that it is Satan’s special effort to lead men to feel that God is pleased to have them choose their own course independent of the counsel of their brethren.

"Herein lies a grave danger to the prosperity of our work. We must move discreetly, sensibly, in harmony with the judgment of God-fearing counselors; for in this course alone lies our safety and strength. Otherwise God cannot work with us and by us and for us.

"Oh, how Satan would rejoice if he could succeed in his efforts to get in among this people and disorganize the work at a time when thorough organization is essential and will be the greatest power to keep out spurious uprisings and to refute claims not endorsed by the word of God! We want to hold the lines evenly, that there shall be no breaking down of the system of organization and order that has been built up by wise, careful labor. License must not be given to disorderly elements that desire to control the work at this time.

"Some have advanced the thought that, as we near the close of time, every child of God will act independently of any religious organization. But I have been instructed by the Lord that in this work there is no such thing as every man’s being independent. The stars of heaven are all under law, each influencing the other to do the will of God, yielding their common obedience to the law that controls their action. And, in order that the Lord’s work may advance healthfully and solidly, His people must draw together.

"The spasmodic, fitful movements of some who claim to be Christians are well represented by the work of strong but untrained horses. When one pulls forward, another pulls back, and at the voice of their master one plunges ahead and the other stands immovable. If men will not move in concert in the great and grand work for this time, there will be confusion. It is not a good sign when men refuse to unite with their brethren and prefer to act alone. Let laborers take into their confidence the brethren who are free to point out every departure from right principles. If men wear the yoke of Christ, they can not pull apart; they will draw with Christ.

"Some workers pull with all the power that God has given them, but they have not yet learned that they should not pull alone. Instead of isolating themselves, let them draw in harmony with their fellow laborers. Unless they do this, their activity will work at the wrong time and in the wrong way. They will often work counter to that which God would have done, and thus their work is worse than wasted.

"Unity in Diversity

"On the other hand, the leaders among God’s people are to guard against the danger of condemning the methods of individual workers who are led by the Lord to do a special work that but few are fitted to do. Let brethren in responsibility be slow to criticize movements that are not in perfect harmony with their methods of labor. Let them never suppose that every plan should reflect their own personality. Let them not fear to trust another’s methods; for by withholding their confidence from a brother laborer who, with humility and consecrated zeal, is doing a special work in God’s appointed way, they are retarding the advancement of the Lord’s cause.

"God can and will use those who have not had a thorough education in the schools of men. A doubt of His power to do this is manifest unbelief; it is limiting the omnipotent power of the One with whom nothing is impossible. Oh, for less of this uncalled-for, distrustful caution! It leaves so many forces of the church unused; it closes up the way so that the Holy Spirit cannot use men; it keeps in idleness those who are willing and anxious to labor in Christ’s lines; it discourages from entering the work many who would become efficient laborers together with God if they were given a fair chance.

"To the prophet the wheel within a wheel, the appearance of living creatures connected with them, all seemed intricate and unexplainable. But the hand of Infinite Wisdom is seen among the wheels, and perfect order is the result of its work. Every wheel, directed by the hand of God, works in perfect harmony with every other wheel. I have been shown that human instrumentalities are liable to seek after too much power and try to control the work themselves. They leave the Lord God, the Mighty Worker, too much out of their methods and plans, and do not trust to Him everything in regard to the advancement of the work. No one should for a moment fancy that he is able to manage those things that belong to the great I AM. God in His providence is preparing a way so that the work may be done by human agents. Then let every man stand at his post of duty, to act his part for this time and know that God is his instructor.

"The General Conference

"I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and to say what plans shall be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body.

"At times, when a small group of men entrusted with the general management of the work have, in the name of the General Conference, sought to carry out unwise plans and to restrict God’s work, I have said that I could no longer regard the voice of the General Conference, represented by these few men, as the voice of God. But this is not saying that the decisions of a General Conference composed of an assembly of duly appointed, representative men from all parts of the field should not be respected. God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work.

"When this power, which God has placed in the church, is accredited wholly to one man, and he is invested with the authority to be judgment for other minds, then the true Bible order is changed. Satan’s efforts upon such a man’s mind would be most subtle and sometimes well-nigh overpowering, for the enemy would hope that through his mind he could affect many others. Let us give to the highest organized authority in the church that which we are prone to give to one man or to a small group of men" (Testimonies to the Church, Vol.9, pp. 257-261).