Our Roots, Pt. 43

Order and Organization of the Apostolic Church (Concluded)
By T. E. Bowen
(Review and Herald, May 9, 1907)

At one time James and John besought Christ that they might be seated, one on the right hand, the other on the left, in his kingdom. Jesus rebuked this request. Its motive was selfishness, the same that actuates politicians seeking for authority. But under the operation of the Holy Spirit, arrangements providing for the guidance, the order, and authority of the church would be made. Order would be preserved, and human instrumentalities would be used to preserve it, but not in the manner James and John supposed. At this conference were those men upholding the circumcision idea. Peter, James (the Lord's brother; for James the brother of John had already perished with the sword), Barnabas, and Paul, with delegates from Antioch, Judas, called Barsabbas, and Silas, besides the brethren at Jerusalem, are named as being present — a representative company. This question of circumcision received careful consideration. The conference was called for this special purpose. “And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter." The disciples from “the sect of the Pharisees who believed" rose up and said, “It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses." Peter followed with his experience. Then Paul and Barnabas were listened to while they related “what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them."

James certainly acted as chairman, by common consent, of this conference; for when the arguments were all in from both sides, he gave in as his judgment “that we trouble not them that from the Gentiles turn to God; but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood." All voted for this, and delegates were chosen and appointed by the apostles and the elders, the whole church concurring, to accompany Paul and Barnabas back into the conference of Gentile churches, bearing letters announcing the decision of the general conference at Jerusalem concerning the circumcision difficulty. What for? — So that these men running about upon their own assumed authority, unsettling the minds of the believers, might hereafter be silenced as having no authority from the church to carry on such a work. Thus this perplexing question of circumcision was forever settled, and in the Lord's own way; for he had by direct revelation sent Paul up to Jerusalem for its settlement, thus acknowledging also that the organized church had responsibility in reference to the deciding of such questions.

This is not the only instance where reference is made to James, showing that he, not Peter, stood as the one chosen as best suited to preside over the work of the general cause at that time. When Peter was thrust into prison at the time James, the brother of John, was killed, after his miraculous escape he went to the house of Mary, John Mark's mother. On leaving that night for his escape from Jerusalem, he left word with them to take the news of his departure to James. Acts 12: 17. Why report to James?—Because he was their acknowledged leader, or servant of all; and through him Peter was communicating to the whole church.

Another instance is that of Paul's last visit to Jerusalem, before going to Rome. Again, he desired to report here the wonderful works of God manifested in his labors. Taking with him some representative brethren (delegates from the churches where he had labored), he made his way to Jerusalem. “And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present." Then they rehearsed their experiences. Acts 21.

Of Paul's first visit to Jerusalem, he wrote to the Galatian brethren: “And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do." Now what are we to conclude from all this?

1. That, while the head of every man, as well as of the church, was Christ, the men who were under the direct leadership of Christ, through the Holy Ghost, in the early church, were perfectly organized, and labored unitedly, with system and order characterizing all their movements.

2. That although under the direct working of the Spirit of God,— so much so that many of them were prophets, having visions by day and night, with angels often appearing to them as counselors,— still the apostles felt the need of counseling together concerning important interests in the church, coming together for this special purpose.

3. That at these council meetings, as well as between them, some one was chosen to preside and take the oversight of the interests of Christ's work.

4. That representative men were selected as delegates from churches, to attend these councils, and to go on various errands, to represent the church in specific matters as the interest of the work demanded.

And this is all that the system of organization, perfected under the guidance of the Spirit, is for in these days. But it is very evident, from these New Testament scriptures, that under the mighty working of the Holy Spirit, poured out in the former rain upon the church, there was unity among the believers, and a system of organization maintained which was perfect in its operations. In it all every man had perfect liberty in Christ, God alone being exalted as the head, while the power of his name was being published throughout the earth.

In closing, we wish to submit a few quotations from the spirit of prophecy, which will help us to understand a little more clearly these brief statements of the Scriptures thrown in in the gospel narrative. In the old edition of “Great Controversy," Vol. Ill, pages 368-374, in speaking of the controversy over circumcision, we read (italics are used to call attention to certain points) : "Churches were duly organized in the places before mentioned, elders appointed in each church, and the proper order and system established there. Paul and Barnabas labored in Antioch some time; and many Gentiles there embraced the doctrine of Christ. But certain Jews from Judea raised a general consternation among the believing Gentiles, by agitating the question of circumcision. They asserted, with great assurance, that none could be saved without being circumcised.

“This was an important question, and one which affected the church in a very great degree. Paul and Barnabas met it with promptness, and opposed introducing the subject to the Gentiles. They were opposed in this by the believing Jews of Antioch, who favored the position of those from Judea. The matter resulted in much discussion and want of harmony in the church [the very thing the enemy was after], until finally the church at Antioch, apprehending that a division among them would occur from any further discussion of the question, decided to send Paul and Barnabas, together with some responsible men of Antioch, to Jerusalem, and lay the matter before the apostles and elders. There they were to meet delegates from the different churches, and those who had come to attend the approaching annual festivals. Meanwhile all controversy was to cease, until a final decision should be made by the responsible men of the church. This decision was then to be universally accepted by the various churches throughout the country.

“Upon arriving at Jerusalem, the delegates from Antioch related before the assembly of the churches the success that had attended the ministry with them, and the confusion that had resulted from the fact that certain converted Pharisees declared that the Gentile converts must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, in order to be saved."

“The question thus brought under the consideration of the council seemed to present insurmountable difficulties, viewed in whatever light. But the Holy Ghost had, in reality, already settled this problem, upon the decision of which depended the prosperity, and even the existence, of the Christian church. Grace, wisdom, and sanctified judgment were given to the apostles to decide the vexed question."

After this question was “warmly discussed in the assembly," James bore his testimony with decision — that God designed to bring in the Gentiles to enjoy all the privileges of the Jews. The Holy Ghost saw good not to impose the ceremonial law on the Gentile converts; and the apostles and elders, after careful investigation of the subject, saw the matter in the same light, and their mind was as the mind of the Spirit of God. James presided at the council, and his final decision was, "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God."

These quotations corroborate that before cited from the Scriptures: —
1. That every church was thoroughly organized, with elders, deacons, and other officers.
2. That in questions involving the whole church, an individual church would not assume the responsibility of deciding them alone, but chose delegates to assemble with representatives from other churches, to consider them together.
3. That in these councils, a man of good judgment was chosen to preside over the deliberations.
4. And that thus churches of the same faith were handed together in one common brotherhood, although of different nationalities. Also that the Holy Ghost recognized these gatherings of the believers, by being present with wisdom and power to guide God's chosen, representative servants.

Surely the child of God can find in all this instruction from the New Testament and the spirit of prophecy ample proof that the organization under which Seventh-day Adventists are carrying forward the closing work of the gospel in the earth is in perfect accord with the methods by which Christ carried on the work of salvation in the days of the apostles. And may his grace enable every loyal soul keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus to cling to the organization Christ himself has given us to preserve unity and order in this time when the enemy is seeking to confuse and scatter God's “little flock."

Next: Rebuking Kingly Power

Our Roots, Pt. 42

The Order and Organization of the Apostolic Church, Part 1
By T. E. Bowen
(Review and Herald, May 2, 1907)

Order marks the movements of God. He is not the author of confusion, but he is able to organize his work and people, and bring them out of even confusion itself—Babylon.

Many minds seem to be greatly agitated just now about the organization of the work constituting the third angel's message. With much seriousness and apparent humility, it is asserted that, while the "Testimonies" advocate this system of organization into conferences and unions, etc., the Bible, especially the New Testament, presents no such system. There is a class who think they are doing God service to rise up and cast off this "terrible yoke of bondage," as they call it, asserting that Christ is their head, and they will be amenable to no combination whatever of brethren composing the church body, at least above the individual church. They call for "freedom," for “liberty" to do exactly as they please, teach what they choose, and say that this is following that instruction where Christ referred to the princes of the Gentiles who exercised authority over others, and said, “It shall not be so among you."

This may all sound good to some, but it will not stand the test of careful study of the teaching and practice of Christ and the apostles as recorded in the Scriptures. All this is a subtle attack upon the validity of the “Testimonies;" for the “Testimonies" themselves teach that nothing is presented in them that is not found in the Bible.

Let us refer to a few instances where it is clearly shown that there was a close connection between not only the laborers in the early church, but that this same brotherly relationship existed between church companies themselves, and that, too, between churches of different nationalities. When Christ left the disciples on the hill of Olivet, he instructed them to tarry in Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high. He said that when they received this power, they would become his living witnesses “both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." By these words it is shown that unto them, first, who had been with him in the “regeneration" was committed the responsibilities of pioneering the gospel work. It was these few humble fishermen, filled with the Holy Ghost, who were to begin that mighty work, the scope of which they themselves had not as yet fully comprehended, which would be carried forward until the very ends of the earth should be reached by others believing on Jesus “through their word."

This mighty work began on the day of Pentecost. Peter stood up and spoke for God, as also the others with him, in different languages, so that all heard the message of the crucified and risen Christ that day in their own language. The word mightily grew, and believers multiplied in Jerusalem. They were all of “one accord," and had all things common. But soon conditions arose demanding that some order and system be established in caring for the believers. Seven men were selected to look after the details of the temporal necessities of the church. God blessed this move. The apostles continued preaching the word, and believers were daily added “to the church," such as should be saved. What church? — The Jerusalem church, believing in Jesus.

Soon persecution arose. Stephen, one of the seven deacons set apart by the Jerusalem church, was stoned. "And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem [of which the twelve apostles were visible leaders under Christ]; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles."

Notice, the apostles were permitted to remain at Jerusalem. The believers were scattered. They went throughout the towns round about Jerusalem, preaching Christ. Philip, an evangelist, entered Samaria. And the Samaritans believed the word. They had only a few weeks before refused to give Jesus even a night's lodging. But their hearts were won by his kindness to them, even though they treated him unkindly. They were now ready to listen to Philip's preaching concerning the Messiah, and many believed. Thus churches were raised up in Samaria. But what of it? They surely were not connected in any way with the Jerusalem church. Let us see: “Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John." Acts 8:14. How is this? Did they go of themselves? — No; the record says the Jerusalem church “sent them." Then these “chief apostles," “pillars of the church" at Jerusalem, regarded themselves as indebted in some way to the new believers down in Samaria, and went down to assist Philip in his work. And surely God directed this move; for when they prayed for these new disciples, and laid their hands upon them, “they received the Holy Spirit."

Thus these delegates, or representatives, of the Jerusalem church were sent to establish in the faith those who had just come to believe in Christ. Was not this a manifest union of interests? And by this were not the believers in Samaria and those at Jerusalem more closely united as “brethren" in Christ, whereas heretofore, as nations, they had no dealings one with another? But did this union mean that the elders of Jerusalem — Peter, James, and John, and the others — were to lord it over Samaria? — O, no! but it is plainly to be seen that there was established a bond of union between them.

Peter and the other apostles continued visiting among the churches, to instruct and assist them. God also sent Peter out among the Romans, to the centurion, on one occasion. He was, prior to this, down at Joppa. Note this little record: “And it came to pass, as Peter went throughout all parts, he came down also to the saints that dwelt at Lydda." His work by this scripture seemed to be going about through “all parts," visiting the “saints," and preaching in new places. But Jerusalem was his headquarters. He was one of the elders there. Therefore, in Peter, as in leading brethren now whom God is using, these companies of believers were united in the Holy Ghost as brethren banded together to carry the gospel into all the world.

Later, Paul was raised up by Jesus himself, who met him in the way as he was bent on persecuting the church. When Paul asked the Lord himself what to do, Jesus did not tell him, but simply directed him to the church of believers at Damascus, saying, “And it shall be told thee what thou must do." Here Jesus simply was carrying out his own instruction. He had endued the believers with power and authority. By this act he would not overrule that, but instead sent an angel to tell his servant at Damascus to tell Paul what he should do. To Paul was soon revealed, as well as to others, the great work in store for him, and what he must endure for Christ.

Later, the church at Antioch was instructed by the Holy Ghost, through the spirit of prophecy, to send Paul and Barnabas away among the Gentiles. Not that this church ordained them to go and work for it, making these new converts amenable to that church alone — far from it; they were too unselfish for that. And, further, Barnabas was simply a representative evangelist, sent out from the Jerusalem church, and was largely instrumental in the establishing of the Antioch church in the faith. For the record states that “they therefore that were scattered abroad upon the tribulation that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to none save only to Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number that believed turned unto the Lord. And the report concerning them came to the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas as far as Antioch."

Now, will these friends who see nothing in organization, no record whatever of any such thing in the New Testament, please inform us why it was that these reports of new churches springing up here and there should find their way unto the ears of the church in Jerusalem? And, also, it would be very interesting to have it explained how it came about that in nearly every instance, some brother was delegated from the Jerusalem church to “go" and assist these new believers. Certainly there was some kind of arrangement whereby these believers were perfectly united, and reported the progress of the new cause of Christ to the elders at Jerusalem. And this system was not the papacy, either. But this is not all. Paul was greatly blessed of God among the Gentiles. He was a chosen instrument, and God wrought mightily through him. He went into new territory where no man had ever preached Jesus. Churches sprang into existence. Now, according to this new theory that the local church organization is amenable to none other, Paul surely need recognize no one. His power was absolute. Among these new churches he was in direct communication with Christ — the Head of the Church — as he had revelations more abundant even than the apostles at Jerusalem themselves. But do we find Paul taking this position ? — No, indeed; he recognized the organization of the body — the church.

Later, the very complicated and perplexing question of circumcision arose. Certain Jewish believers, claiming to be genuine and very conscientious (but in reality “false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage," Paul afterward wrote of them. See Gal. 2:4), came down from Jerusalem among the Gentile churches, teaching that those new converts must keep the ceremonial law of Moses, and be circumcised. Paul withstood them stiffly. The controversy became so intense that it was seen the matter could not be settled there; and inasmuch as it was a question affecting the whole denomination of Christian believers,— all the churches both in Judea and elsewhere,—Paul was instructed in a vision what to do. He, with other delegates chosen from the Gentile churches, was appointed by the Antioch church to go up to Jerusalem and lay this question of circumcision, causing such a division among the churches, before the apostles and elders there. A very complete account of that first general conference of Christian believers is found in Acts 15.
(To be concluded)

Next: The Order and Organization of the Apostolic Church, Part 2

Our Roots, Pt. 41

Organization—No. 15 (Review and Herald, May 16, 1907)

The pioneers of this cause upon whom rested the responsibility of developing a system of organization that would meet the requirements of this many-sided, world-wide movement, felt the weight and gravity of such a responsibility. They gave the subject the most careful and prolonged study; they searched the Scriptures privately and together for light; they prayed and counseled together with deep solicitude; and they accepted the counsel that came through the spirit of prophecy. Thus with great care they worked out a plan of organization for churches, conferences, and institutions which they believed was in harmony with the principles of gospel order and organization set forth in the Scriptures.

We have now been testing the efficiency of this system for nearly half a century, and we have found that it has fully met the needs of a growing, expanding work. During the same time we have been giving its fundamental features a rigid comparison with the details of church organization outlined in the Scriptures. This comparison reveals such a close resemblance in all essential features, that we are fully convinced that our predecessors built this organization upon sound gospel principles.

The Scriptures and Testimonies of the spirit of prophecy give us valuable information regarding the character of the organization provided by the Lord for the direction and government of the church in both the Old and New Testament times. By divine instruction the children of Israel at Sinai, who constituted the "church in the wilderness," were placed under the most perfect organization applicable to human society. Regarding this the spirit of prophecy says: —

Here their worship had taken more definite form, the laws had been given for the government of the nation, and a more efficient organization had been effected preparatory to their entrance into the land of Canaan. The government of Israel was characterized by the most thorough organization, wonderful alike for its completeness and its simplicity, The order so strikingly displayed in the perfection and arrangement of all God's created works was manifest in the Hebrew economy.

God was the center of authority and government, the sovereign of Israel. Moses stood as their visible leader, by God's appointment, to administer the laws in his name. From the elders of the tribes a council of seventy was afterward chosen to assist Moses in the general affairs of the nation. Next came the priests, who consulted the Lord in the sanctuary. Chiefs, or princes, ruled over the tribes. Under these were "captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens; " and, lastly, officers who might be employed for special duties.— "Patriarchs and Prophets" page 374.

The facts set forth in the quotation above will not be discovered from a hasty reading of the Old Testament, but they will be clearly seen by a careful study of the following passages: Ex. 18:13-26; Deut. 1:9-18; 16:17-20; 17: 2-13; Num. 11:16, 17.

A summary of the details recorded in these scriptures would be something as follows: —

First, there were chosen from among the people able men, such as feared God, men of truth, hating covetousness, to take the management of the affairs of the church. Ex. 18:21; Deut. 16: 18,

Second, these men were "rulers," "captains," "heads," and "officers" among the people. Ex. 18:21; Deut. 1:15.

Third, to these men, placed in official positions, were assigned responsibilities of varying degrees — officers over thousands, and hundreds, and fifties, and tens. Ex. 18:21; Deut. 1: 15.

Fourth, as rulers or officers of these large and small companies they were located in all parts of the land among the people, to associate with them, study their conditions, needs, and interests, and to counsel and guide them in all that pertained to their spiritual welfare. Ex. 18:22; Deut. 1:16; 16:18, 19.

Fifth, among the many men appointed rulers and officers to lead and guide the church, "seventy men of the elders of Israel," " elders of the people, and officers over them," were chosen by the Lord's direction to stand with Moses and help him to bear the heavy burden that rested upon him. Num. 11:16, 17.

Sixth, each one of these various officers among the people was to look after matters pertaining to the company over which he presided. He was to see to those interests nearest to him; "within thy gates" is the exact expression. Deut. 17:2, 8.

Seventh, when an officer, in the administration of his affairs, found a problem or difficulty too great for him to adjust, he was to refer it to a higher body for final settlement. Deut. 17:8-13. Certain matters too difficult for any of the rulers were carried to Moses and his advisers, the seventy elders. Deut. 1:17.

Eighth, by this system of organization, the people of all the tribes scattered throughout Palestine were bound together in one body. The tribes, the families, and the people gathered in various cities were not separate, disconnected fragments. They were one people, living under one general system of organization, which applied in its working to every individual.

The general plan of the organization adopted by Seventh-day Adventists is very similar to that outlined above. It contributes to the welfare of every member of the body throughout the whole world.

First, the little company of believers who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus select a leader — an officer of ten.

Second, in due time this company organizes into a church, and elects its officers — an elder, a deacon, a treasurer, and a clerk. It maintains departments of service, such as the Sabbath-school, the missionary society, the Young People's Society, etc., and appoints leaders of these departments.

Third, the single, separate church does not stand alone and isolated from its sister churches. A number of churches in a given territory, great or small, as the conditions may suggest, unite together in an association of churches, called a conference. They see the same good reason for associating churches together for mutual co-operation and concert of action that leads individuals to unite in church relationship.

Fourth, these churches select men and women from their number to meet together for counsel regarding their mutual interests, the needs of the cause of God, and to choose the men and women from their number who shall be made officers and ministers of the conference. These officers may be called rulers of fifties.

Fifth, the plan of organization does not end here. A number of these local conferences associate together in the formation of a larger conference — a union conference. The union is organized, its officers elected, and its general plans decided upon by men chosen from the various local conferences composing the union. The officers of union conferences may be said to be rulers of hundreds.

Sixth, and finally, all the union conferences and mission fields throughout the world are united and associated together in one General Conference. When in session, this General Conference is composed of men and women appointed by union and local conferences. Everything pertaining to the general welfare of the cause is laid before these representatives. They form the general plans of administration, elect the general committee, the officers, etc. The members of this committee may be said to be rulers of thousands.

By this arrangement all the people of this cause are associated together as one people, very much as Israel was. The leaders of tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands have their specific responsibilities within their gates. The problems that are too hard for one are referred to a higher body. Those that are too difficult for the General Committee are laid before the Lord's prophet.

This comparison might be carried still further, but what has been pointed out will prove sufficient to make it plain that there is a very close resemblance between that simple, complete, and efficient system of organization provided for the church established by Moses, and the organization worked out for the remnant church called out by the threefold message of Rev. 14:6-14.

Next: Order and Organization in the Apostolic Church

Still Going Down

Last year in the middle of August we observed the one year anniversary (plus a few weeks) of Takoma Park's adoption of the recommendations of the Potomac Conference executive committee for resolving our governance dispute. Since these recommendations were supposed to resolve the issues at hand and clear the way for the church to move forward and grow, the Group at that time decided to stand back and let Pastor DeSilva have a free hand to implement the recommendations and lead the growth. A year later neither of these things had happened, so we marked the anniversary with a comparison of the attendance, tithe, and offering numbers for the second week of August 2010 with the second week of August 2009. All of those indicators had declined in the year that Pastor DeSilva had had Group-free reign to do exactly as he pleased at Takoma Park.

We have now passed the second anniversary of the adoption of the Potomac Conference's recommendations. They still have not been fully implemented and Takoma Park is still not growing. So here we are again to give the numerical evidence of the church's downward spiral under Pastor DeSilva's administration. Once again, we are comparing numbers from the second week in August.

On August 13, 2011, 59 people attended the first service at Takoma Park. There were 177 people at the second service, which made the total for the day 236 people. On the second Sabbath of August 2010 there were 241 people in attendance. This is a decline of 2.1% over one year. On the second Sabbath of August 2009 there were 410 people in attendance. This makes a decline in attendance of 42.5% over two years.

The 2011 year-to-date offerings for Takoma Park stood at $212,831 on August 13. One year before, the number was $241,602. Two years before, it was $254, 701. That makes a 12% drop over one year and a 16.5% drop over two years.

The 2011 year-to-date tithe for Takoma Park stood at $495, 701 on August 13. In 2010 that number was $567,778. In 2009 that number was $620, 131. That makes a 12.7% drop in the last year and a 20.1% drop in the last two years.

Potomac Conference, how low must these numbers drop before you are willing to recognize and deal with the problems at Takoma Park?

Endurance

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers." (Galatians 6:7-10, NIV)

"Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize." (1 Corinthians 9:24-27, NIV)

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfector of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart." (Hebrews 12:1-3, NIV)

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

Our Roots, Pt. 39

On March 4, 1906 Jones brought his attacks against the organizational structure, church leadership, and the Spirit of Prophesy out into the open. He did this in the form of a pamphlet published under the title, “Some History, Some Experience, and Some Facts.” This pamphlet was a reproduction of a talk he had given in the Battle Creek Tabernacle. In this talk he read and commented on two documents. The first was a statement he had prepared and read to three members of the General Conference executive committee (including Daniells) who had recently been in Battle Creek. The second was a letter he had written to Daniells.

The substance of the first document was an accusation that the church leadership was stirring up trouble among the Battle Creek Sanitarium’s workers and students. This “trouble” pertained to instruction given by Ellen White that Adventists ought to leave Battle Creek (or not go there to study in the first place). The following excerpt describes the sort of misbehavior supposedly incited:

“They insist that they ‘must go,’ and send in their resignation to take effect a month or six weeks, or two months or more afterward: or to take effect when their contract expires anyhow. We accept their resignation, to take effect earlier, or possibly immediately. Then they insist that if they go earlier, they must be paid full wages clear up to the expiration of the time of their contract, or they ask to say ‘two weeks’ more; and when we consent to their plea, then they spend their time just as far as they can, and make opportunity day and night, to create dissatisfaction in others of the family, and even in the patients; to attend secret meetings off the premises, or to hold secret meetings on the premises; to show disrespect to their teachers, to those in responsibility, and in fact to everybody who does not fall in with their own spirit; to despise the Bible, prayer, and meetings, whether for religious service, or for the benefit and improvement of the Sanitarium and its work; to be careless, if not reckless, of the property of the Sanitarium; to betray confidence; in short, to do any unchristian thing, and no Christian thing if they can help it. And when at last their own set time expires, or because of their perverse course we are compelled to discharge them, then they claim and report that they are turned out because they believe the Testimonies, and still hang around the place, watching for chances to poison the minds of others, and to make great representations of how ‘the Testimonies tell everybody to get out of Battle Creek.’”

The second document (the letter to Daniells) contained accusations that the changes made to the governance structure at the 1903 Session made it a “czardom” and a “bureaucracy,” among other things. It also claimed that these changes had been pushed through against the will of the majority of the delegates. The letter also accused the church leadership of a personal campaign to discredit and otherwise ruin Kellogg, and went on to try to discredit the Spirit of Prophesy by citing what Jones claimed were inconsistencies and other difficulties with various “testimonies” sent out by Ellen White.

After this pamphlet came out several church leaders spent a week at Ellen White’s home in California going through it and searching out documentation from her writings to refute the various accusations. After this consultation Ellen White wrote a letter of correction directly to Jones. This particular manuscript doesn’t seem to have ever been released to the public by the White Estate, but another letter written a few months later to a couple whose sympathy Kellogg had tried to gain makes clear her attitude toward what was going on:

“I feel intensely sorrowful when I see some of our brethren in Battle Creek taking a course that is leading them away from the truth: for I have had a presentation of the first apostasy in the heavenly courts. The warnings of the Holy Spirit have been disregarded, and there has been persistent work of deception. A. T. Jones has permitted himself to be used as the voice of Dr. J. H. Kellogg. …

“Dr. Kellogg places himself before the world in the position of one who is greatly abused. He writes many letters, as he has to you, making such a representation as would call forth sympathy. But he is still at work with all subtlety. I have felt compelled to warn our people: for they do not understand his cunning. …

“If Dr. Kellogg can destroy the faith of any of our people in the testimonies, he will do it. He sometimes takes the nurses and others, sometimes alone in the night season, and talks with them for hours framing a tissue of falsehood, to make them believe himself a much abused man. Some of these poor souls have heard the truth, and they wish to get out of Battle Creek. They realize that their safety consists in leaving the place where they are so deceived. The doctor will take advantage in every way to make an impression upon human minds in destroying all confidence in the testimonies. If we are not constantly on guard, he will destroy by his sophistries, if possible, the very elect. And those associates who have upheld him will have to answer before God for their individual course of action” (Letter to Dr. and Mrs. Kress, written July 27, 1906).

After completing their research the church leaders made a public response to the Jones pamphlet by publishing one of their own on March 23, 1906 entitled “A Statement Refuting Charges Made by A. T. Jones Against the Spirit of Prophesy and the Plan of Organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination.” This “Statement” detailed the facts and circumstances surrounding each of the situations about which Jones had made accusations.

Regarding the accusation of secret meetings, it was explained that while Daniells and some other leaders had been in Battle Creek on other business testimonies from Ellen White had arrived with instructions that they should be publicly read to the Adventists at Battle Creek. After these readings had been completed a number of people came forward and asked to meet with these church leaders personally to get answers to the questions swirling around in Battle Creek which cast doubt on the authority of Ellen White’s work. The church leaders agreed to meet with these individuals at times and places convenient to them and with whomever else they cared to invite. The result was a series of small, informal, and private (though hardly secret) meetings which countered the influence Kellogg and Jones had been exerting. It is hardly surprising, then, that they would try to disparage these meetings and make it appear that something improper had occurred.

As to the more general charges of destruction of property and consistently unchristian behavior, it was pointed out that no evidence had been produced of any specific instances of this sort of conduct. The “Statement” itself responds to this charge most succinctly, “The real seat of the difficulty lies in the fact that, when the Testimonies were read, some believed them, and they simply exercised their religious liberty, not only to believe them themselves, but to endeavor to restore in their fellow-laborers the confidence of which they had been robbed by the subtle, covert teaching to which they had listened.

“On several occasions we understand, they manifested their disapprobation regarding such teaching as was calculated to destroy their confidence, not only in the spirit of prophesy, but in the message itself. It is possible that some may not have shown their disapproval of the efforts made to disparage the message, and the organized work of God in the earth, in the wisest way. But they had the right to disbelieve what was said, and to protest against it in a proper way. This they did in some instances; but this exercise of religious liberty seems to have been misunderstood. Their courage to remonstrate against error, and exercise religious liberty, is what is here called a spirit of ‘boycott,’ ‘disrespect,” a ‘dishonest course,’ and an ‘unchristian thing.’ No stronger evidence is needed of the complete departure of the Sanitarium management from some of the fundamental principles of this message, than the fact that the simple reading of Testimonies from the Spirit of God in the Tabernacle, and the effort to lead persons back into a belief of them, should call forth such grave charges as are here made.” (p.9)

The Statement also went into considerable detail in explaining the changes in the organizational structure and the reasons behind them. As we’ve already covered that territory in this series of posts we won’t get into the details again, but the introduction to this portion of the Statement describes the situation with such clarity that it is worth including here, “Now is the time for our people to get a clear understanding of just what the called-for reorganization was, and just what response was made to that call. First of all we wish to state very clearly that the call that came to us at the General Conference of 1901 to re-organize was not a call to disorganize. Nor was it a call to abandon the original purpose and general plan of organization adopted by the pioneers of this cause. We accept the assurance that has been given us through the spirit of prophesy, that the Lord led and guided the leaders of this cause who were called to form the original plans of organization for this world-wide movement which we are carrying forward” (p.19).

After discussing the organizational structure, the Statement moved on to the charge that a personal attack was being made on Kellogg, “That the denomination has been passing through a sad and most trying experience during the past four years, we freely admit. But the controversy has been one concerning vital and fundamental principles,--a controversy between truth and error. The fundamental principles of our message have been assailed. Besides this, a policy of administration has been contending for the mastery which is destructive of all organization, and if allowed to secure the supremacy, would bring anarchy and ruin. It is against these things, and these only, that we have been contending. And against these evil things we expect to contend to the end. Men are involved in the contention only as they are the champions of opposing principles. If the men who are now leaders in the strife which is in our midst should step aside, and others take their places, and the apostasy and wicked spirit of domination should continue to assert themselves, the warfare would still continue. Once more let us say, that it is against wrong principles, and not men, that we are contending” (p.36).

The rebuttal then moved on to the supposed inconsistencies in the testimonies from Ellen White. After disproving one specific accusation by quoting the entire testimony in question and thereby showing that it simply did not say what Jones claimed it said, the Statement made this observation, “The glaring discrepancies which appear in this instance between what the Testimonies really say and what Elder Jones says they say, are to be seen in all his arguments that follow. He tells us that he has changed his belief respecting the Testimonies; that he can not believe them now as he once did, and cites as a reason certain Testimonies which he claims contain contradictions. But, when these very Testimonies themselves are produced in which the alleged contradictions occur, no such contradictions appear. We invite particular attention to this fact as we examine each of the charges which he prefers against the testimonies. One of two things is certainly true; either Elder Jones has quoted from memory, or he has knowingly perverted the plain statements of the Testimonies. He can impale himself on either horn of this dilemma he chooses” (p.60). The same exercise was undergone with each successive accusation against the testimonies. In each case the actual text of the testimony in question completely disproved the accusation.

One final thought from the Statement will suffice to summarize the whole, “The cry of apostasy has ever been, ‘Ye have killed the people of the Lord.’ It claims the right to carry on its destructive work without opposition. With it, opposition is persecution.

“But the church of God has been set for the defense of the truth, and it can not sit idly by while men wreck the hopes and sincere, confiding hearts for time and for eternity. Elder Jones may boast, if he wishes, that he will ‘never take any part’ in this campaign against error; and so far as we know he has not. Instead, however, he has, to all appearances, allied himself with this apostasy, has become a part of it, and now stands forth as its most prominent champion. Of this, the leaflet under review is indisputable evidence.” (p.38)

Next: Public Resolution

Our Roots, Pt. 38

As we have seen earlier, Ellen White did not involve herself with the practical details of determining organizational form. Her concern was with the principles on which that form was based and how well church leaders imbibed and practiced those principles. Any specific form church leaders devised which was in harmony with those principles was acceptable to her. Being content that the form chosen in 1901 and tweaked in 1903 was in accordance with those principles, she focused her energies on counseling church leaders to take the principles to heart. This was significant and necessary because many of the same church leaders that had been in power before the reorganization still held positions of power after it, and unless they took to heart the corrected principles of operation they could just as easily abuse the improved system as they had the earlier system of organization.

The concern that leaders practice the principles on which the reorganization was based is seen in warnings like this one:

“Too much power is invested in humanity when matters are so arranged that one man, or a small group of men have it in their power to rule or to ruin the work of their fellow-laborers. In the erection of medical institutions and the development of their work, there is not to be a ruling, kingly power, as there has been in the past. The kingly power formerly exhibited in the General Conference is not to be perpetuated. The publishing work is not to be a kingdom of itself. It is essential that the principles that govern in General Conference affairs shall be maintained in the management of the publishing work and the sanitarium work. No one is to think that the branch of work with which he is connected is of vastly more importance than other branches.

“The division of the General Conference into District Union Conferences was God’s arrangement. In the work of the Lord for these last days there are to be no Jerusalem centers, no kingly power. And the work in the different countries is not to be tied up by contracts to the work centering in Battle Creek; for [this is] not God’s plan. Brethren are to counsel together; for we are just as much under the control of God in one part of His vineyard as in another. Brethren are to be one in heart and soul, even as Christ and the Father are one. Teach this, practice this, that we may be one with Christ in God, all working to build up one another” (Manuscript 156B, 1901).

This statement from Ellen White is expertly commented on by Barry Oliver in his book, SDA Organizational Structure, Past, Present, and Future, “These paragraphs which were written on 27 November 1901, seven months after the General Conference session, pointed to a danger which still existed—the danger of failing to implement the principle of decentralization in all the features of the church organization. Ellen White wrote in a manner which was conducive to unity, not disunity. But her burden was that there should not be any centers of kingly power. Her implication was that such concentrations of power would supplant the possibility of that unity which was to be a symbol of the relationship in the Godhead” (p.212, emphasis supplied).

Ellen White stayed out of the Daniells/Kellogg/Jones disputes until the substance of those disputes strayed onto the territory of principle. This happened when the no-debt policy came up and again in regard to Kellogg’s book, The Living Temple. As we have already seen, the issue of the no-debt policy was settled fairly quickly. The matter of Kellogg’s book, and the pantheistic viewpoint it contained, was more complicated. In promoting the book, and in the book itself, Kellogg had used statements from Ellen White—out of context and misinterpreted—to make it appear that she supported his pantheistic philosophies. Ellen White did not correct this abuse of her writings until the statements she sent to be read at the 1903 Autumn Council. Afterwards, these same materials were published in the Review and Herald so that the entire church could understand the situation.

“I have some things to say to our teachers in reference to the new book, ‘The Living Temple.’ Be careful how you sustain the sentiments of this book regarding the personality of God. As the Lord represents matters to me, these sentiments do not bear the indorsement of God. They are a snare that the enemy has prepared for these last days. I thought that this would surely be discerned, and that it would not be necessary for me to say anything about it. But since the claim has been made that the teachings of this book can be sustained by statements from my writings, I am compelled to speak in denial of this claim. There may be in this book expressions and sentiments that are in harmony with my writings. And there may be in my writings many statements which, when taken from their connection, and interpreted according to the mind of the writer of ‘The Living Temple,’ would seem to be in harmony with the teachings of this book. This may give apparent support to the assertion that the sentiments in ‘The Living Temple’ are in harmony with my writings. But God forbid that this opinion should prevail” (Review and Herald, October 22, 1903, par. 1).

As mentioned previously, this public denouncement of Kellogg’s position strengthened the bond between Kellogg and Jones (who thought that Kellogg was being mistreated). These two were equally unwilling to either abandon their position or to openly dismiss the guidance of the Spirit of Prophesy. Instead, they began to sow doubts about the authority of the writings coming from Ellen White. One of the ways they did this was by suggesting that some of the things she said were from God and others were just her own human opinions. A variation on this suggestion was that W.C. White was influencing his mother’s opinions and writings. They also suggested that some of the documents coming out under her name hadn’t actually been written by Ellen White—that W.C. White or some of her other assistants would write out their own thoughts and send them out under her name.

Ellen White was not in the habit of directly addressing challenges to the authority of her work. Such challenges had been popping up now and then throughout her ministry and her typical approach was to ignore them and allow other church leaders to deal with them. In this case she undertook to address them herself (possibly because this time around the other church leaders were also under attack from the Kellogg/Jones camp). In early 1906 Ellen White sent a letter to more than a dozen of the primary agitators in the Kellogg/Jones camp at Battle Creek, inviting them to ask any questions they might have about the authoritativeness of her writings so that she could clear up any doubts or misunderstandings they might have. The questions poured in and she spent several months responding to them.

Next: Meeting a Direct Attack

Our Roots, Pt. 37

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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).