The Tools of Upper Management

What tools do the upper levels of the Adventist structure have to direct the course of the management levels below them?

Some believe the Church organization functions much like an army, and that the general can simply issue an order from the top to correct a situation anywhere within the ranks. Others also use the military metaphor, but they believe that the general may give directions only to his immediate subordinates, who then speak to their subordinates, etc., so that the direction eventually reaches the foot soldiers. Proponents of this view seem to believe that anyone down the chain of command who wishes to alter or negate an order along the way may do so (which rather destroys the metaphor since that isn’t the way military orders work). Neither view is especially accurate.

It is hard to find an analogy that perfectly describes Adventist structure, but to compare it to a corporation with locally owned franchises would come much closer to reality than a military comparison. Except for local congregations and divisions, each level of the Church organization is an independent legal body, with some things the higher levels of the organization can impact and others they can’t. As we saw in Our Roots, this arrangement is meant to facilitate the handling of local matters by local individuals who can be fully informed and involved in those matters and thereby free general administrators to focus on broader regional or worldwide matters. Unfortunately, it can also hinder action by general administrators in specific situations.

There are three tools that each level of the organization can use to influence the actions of the units of organization directly below it:

1. Providing counsel – the most commonly used tool, but it has the disadvantage that the counsel can be ignored. This item is self-explanatory—each level is supposed to talk to each other, coordinate their actions, and defer to the wisdom of those higher up in the organization. In practice, the leaders of a particular level may choose to ignore the counsel given, which is why we would classify this as a tool without teeth.

2. Administering election processes – intended to keep elections free of bias. The administering of election processes is accomplished by the president of the level above chairing the nominating committee when the subordinate level holds elections. In this role, the counsel of the president of the higher organization can carry great weight with the nominating committee and shape outcomes. This, then, would be a tool that does have teeth and is routinely exercised.

3. Expelling a unit from the Adventist Church – an extreme measure used only in exceedingly rare cases involving gross moral, ethical, or doctrinal violations by a substantial portion of the unit’s constituency. Expelling a unit would also be a tool that has teeth, but not one to be used for any but the very worst of situations. Since conferences and union conferences are legal entities apart from their membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, if expelled they would continue to exist as their own entities, though without the privileges of being part of the worldwide church.

These are the tools of the General Conference, divisions, and union conferences. These rather limited options (and the political capital that can be necessary to use them successfully) go a long way toward explaining why resolution of issues can take such a long time. An argument could be made that there is a fourth tool—money—depending on which direction the money is flowing (down to a poor lower unit or up from a wealthy lower unit). Aside from the double-edged nature of this tool, we are excluding it from the official list of tools because—unlike the other three—the granting or withholding of money is not sanctioned by Church policy as a form of influence.

The list of tools with which a conference influences local congregations is slightly different:

1. Providing counsel – as with the higher levels of the organization, congregations are supposed to counsel and coordinate with conferences in their actions. Also like the higher levels, congregations may choose to ignore the counsel given.

2. Hiring, assigning, and administering the work of pastors – as pastors set the tone in a congregation, control of the pastoral staff equates to control of the congregation. (It has become more common among large and wealthy congregations to hire additional pastoral staff with local funds, and these individuals would then answer to the congregation rather than the conference, but this scenario continues to be the exception rather than the rule.) This is the single most effective tool a conference has for managing the course of congregations—assuming they have the guts to use it. To put it bluntly, people pay attention to the will of the people or entity controlling their paycheck. If a pastor or pastors exceeding their authority understood from their conferences in no uncertain terms that failure to comply with certain boundaries would negatively impact their employment, there would most likely be a correction (or at least a show of correction).

3. Downgrading a congregation – usually a practical reaction to insufficient members or funding, but this action can also be taken as a disciplinary measure. Under the Adventist system of governance there are two classifications of congregations—the “church” and the “company.” A company is a smaller, usually younger, body that has not yet grown large enough to be a church in its own right. Companies are generally new plants made by nearby churches, and are overseen by those churches. When a company becomes a church it oversees its own affairs. It is within the power of a conference to make companies into churches, or churches into companies.

4. Dissolving a congregation – as with expelling an administrative unit, this is an extreme measure used only to address massive problems. Unlike expulsion of an administrative unit, a congregation whose collective membership is revoked ceases to exist and its assets are understood to be the property of the conference. (Members who are considered “loyal” may have their memberships transferred to other congregations, but the rest cease to have membership in the Adventist church should their congregation be dissolved. Who is considered loyal and who isn’t is a determination made by the conference.)

This greater range of options gives a conference much more flexibility (and leverage) to address issues that may crop up in the congregations they administer. Unfortunately, whether through disinterest, prioritization of the pastor’s well-being over that of the congregation, cowardice, or some other motive, it is rare to see a conference intervene in a troubled congregation.

The limits to what the higher organization is willing or able to do only serve to emphasize the importance of the membership using their tool for impacting the direction of their church—active and informed participation and voting in the business meetings of their congregations and larger constituent organizations.

Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 36

"There are some young men that say they have given themselves to the work, who need a genuine experience in the things of God before they are fit to labor in the cause of Christ. Instead of going without the camp, bearing reproach for Christ’s sake; instead of seeking the hard places, and trying to bring souls into the truth, these beginners settle themselves in an easy position to visit those who are far advanced in experience. They labor with those who are more capable of teaching them than they are of teaching others. They go from church to church, picking out the easy places, eating and drinking, and suffering others to wait upon them. When you look to see what they have done, there is nothing but leaves. They bring in the report, 'I preached here, and I preached there;' but where are the sheaves they have garnered? Where are the souls that have embraced the truth through their efforts? Where is the evidence of their piety and devotion? Those who are bringing the churches up to a higher standard, by earnest efforts as soldiers of Jesus Christ, are doing a good work.

"Too often the churches have been robbed by the class I have mentioned; for they take their support from the treasury, and bring nothing in return. They are continually drawing out the means that should be devoted to the support of worthy laborers. There should be a thorough investigation of the cases of those who present themselves to labor in the cause. The apostle warns you to 'lay hands suddenly on no man.' If the life is not what God can accept, the labors will be worthless; but if Christ is abiding in the heart by faith, every wrong will be made right, and those who are soldiers of Christ will be willing to prove it by a well-ordered life. There are many who enter the ministry, and their influence demoralizes the churches; and when they are rejected, they take their dismissal as a personal wrong. They have not Christ in the soul, as a well of water springing up unto everlasting life.

"I want to exhort those who are in positions of responsibility, to waken to their duty, and not imperil the cause of present truth by engaging inefficient men to do the work of God. We want men who are willing to go into new fields, and to do hard service for the Lord. I remember visiting in Iowa when the country was new, and I saw the farmers breaking the new ground. I noticed that they had heavy teams, and made tremendous efforts to make deep furrows, but the laborers gained strength and muscle by the exercise of their physical powers. It will make our young men strong to go into new fields, and break up the fallow ground of men’s hearts. This work will drive them nearer to God. It will help them to see that they are altogether inefficient in themselves. They must be wholly the Lords. They must put away their self-esteem and self-importance, and put on the Lord Jesus Christ. When they do this, they will be willing to go without the camp, and bear the burden as good soldiers of the cross. They will gain efficiency and ability by mastering difficulties and overcoming obstacles. Men are wanted for responsible positions, but they must be men who have given full proof of their ministry in willingness to wear the yoke of Christ. Heaven regards this class with approval" (Review and Herald, October 8, 1889, par. 7-9).

Parts of the Whole

So what is the proper relationship between the individual church member and the church organization?

In exploration of this question we have presented the article series Gospel Order and several smaller items. In these we have seen that God chooses to work out His will for this world through the Church, and that order and organization are markers of God’s favor and leading. The exact manifestation of this organization will grow as needed to appropriately handle the growth of the Church. The Church, and the counsel it gives through its leaders, is a God-ordained safeguard against Satan’s attempts to deceive the judgment of individual members because there is strength in associating and counseling together. It takes work to maintain this unity, and the spiritual gifts are given to church members so that each may have their particular contribution to make in supporting and forwarding the work of the whole.

That said, not all can have preeminent leadership roles or there would be chaos; final decision responsibility must rest somewhere. Those who are chosen to take those leadership roles must use them to lead only in the direction of holiness and not seek to dominate those who follow them. Wise leaders will be open to and heed good advice from those around them. If and when disputes arise they should be decided by presenting the matters to representative higher bodies within the Church structure. Separation from the Church and established Church order is apostasy, not reform (barring extraordinary evidences that God is leading in the establishment of a replacement church, which has happened only three times throughout human history). Apostasy is also marked by attacks on Church structure, beliefs, and standards in a climate of deception, divisiveness, and personal attack.

The centrality of the Church in God’s plan is further emphasized by these statements from the Spirit of Prophesy:

“The church is God’s fortress, His city of refuge, which He holds in a revolted world. Any betrayal of the church is treachery to Him who has bought mankind with the blood of His only-begotten Son. From the beginning, faithful souls have constituted the church on earth. In every age the Lord has had His watchmen, who have borne a faithful testimony to the generation in which they lived. These sentinels gave the message of warning; and when they were called to lay off their armor, others took up the work. God brought these witnesses into covenant relation with Himself, uniting the church on earth with the church in heaven. He has sent forth His angels to minister to His church, and the gates of hell have not been able to prevail against His people” (Acts of the Apostles, p. 11).

“During ages of spiritual darkness the church of God has been as a city set on a hill. From age to age, through successive generations, the pure doctrines of heaven have been unfolding within its borders. Enfeebled and defective as it may appear, the church is the one object upon which God bestows in a special sense His supreme regard. It is the theater of His grace, in which He delights to reveal His power to transform hearts” (Acts of the Apostles, p. 12).

To be effective in its purpose, the Church needs its members, “Every man is to stand in his lot and place, thinking, speaking, and acting in harmony with the Spirit of God. Then, and not till then, will the work be a complete, symmetrical whole” (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 6, p. 293). Every person is important; every skill is needed. But what does it mean to stand in your lot and place? Do we find here support for the theory that Church leaders should be followed and supported without question?

“It is always safe to be meek and lowly and tenderhearted, but at the same time we are to be as firm as a rock to the teachings of Christ. His words of instruction are to be strictly heeded. Not one word is to be lost sight of. The truth will abide forever. We are not to place our trust in any lie or pretense. Those who do this will find that it has been done at the loss of eternal life. We are now to make straight paths for our feet, lest the lame be turned out of the way. When the lame are turned from safe paths, who is accountable but those who have misled them? They have set at nought the counsel of the One whose words are life eternal, for the works of deception originating with the father of lies” (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 9, p. 266).

Here we see that being a follower does not include unquestioning support. We are ever to maintain our own individual vigilance about the truth of what we believe and do. This is important not only for our own salvation, but for that of our fellow believers who draw strength and validation from our examples. “When the lame are turned from safe paths, who is accountable but those who have misled them?” Every member of a church community impacts others in that community. Leaders, by virtue of their position, certainly have the greatest impact. But even the lowliest member in the back pew influences others by their example and is accountable for that example.

“I was pointed back, and saw that in every important move, every decision made or point gained by God's people, some have arisen to carry matters to extremes, and to move in an extravagant manner, which has disgusted unbelievers, distressed God's people, and brought the cause of God into disrepute. The people whom God is leading out in these last days, will be troubled with just such things. But much evil will be avoided if the ministers of Christ will be of one mind, united in their plans of action, and united in effort” (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 212).

Satan will attack the Church in any way he can, including leading members to carry good things to extremes that turn them into bad things. It is important to note here that the term “member” applies to everyone in the Church—laity and clergy. No one is immune from Satan’s attacks. The solution for avoiding this pitfall (and many others) is to lean on the collective wisdom found in the Church body; if the rest of the body cannot unite in one mind with you on a given matter, then the matter should not be pushed. This counsel is particularly directed at ministers. It is not enough for the laity alone to be seeking to act in unity with the plans of their leaders—the leaders must also be seeking unity of plan and action with their congregation, their fellow leaders, and the larger body of the Church. “Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand.” (2 Cor. 1:24, NKJV)

How should a member express disagreement with the course of the Church, should such disagreement arise? Or should it not be expressed at all, and merely be suffered through? This is a point Ellen White directly addressed in a context where members were withholding funds in protest over problems in a conference:

“You who have been withholding your means from the cause of God, read the book of Malachi, and see what is spoken there in regard to tithes and offerings. Cannot you see that it is not best under any circumstances to withhold your tithes and offerings because you are not in harmony with everything that your brethren do? The tithes and offerings are not the property of any man, but are to be used in doing a certain work for God; unworthy ministers may receive some of the means thus raised; but dare anyone, because of this, withhold from the treasury and brave the curse of God? I dare not. … If the Conference business is not managed according to the order of the Lord, that is the sin of the erring one; the Lord will not hold you responsible for it, if you do what you can to correct the evil. But do not commit sin yourselves by withholding from the Lord His own property” (Sermons and Talks, Vol. 2, p. 74, emphasis supplied).

And again, “Some have been dissatisfied and have said: `I will not longer pay my tithe, for I have no confidence in the way things are managed at the heart of the work.’ But will you rob God because you think the management of the work is not right? Make your complaint, plainly and openly, in the right spirit, to the proper ones. Send in your petitions for things to be adjusted and set in order; but do not withdraw from the work of God, and prove unfaithful, because others are not doing right” (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 9, p. 249).

These statements are so clear on their own that they really don’t require any elaboration. We will simply emphasize that they provide the expectation that members with complaints can and should register those complaints and do everything in their power to correct them, while at the same time being faithful supporters of the Church in every way, including finances.

To conclude, the Church is God’s chosen instrument for reaching this fallen world, and individuals should not seek to pursue their Christian walk outside of it. (There may be special circumstances where extreme distance or other factors make participation with other believers temporarily impossible, but this is not God’s ideal.) The Church’s vitality is derived from the active contributions of its members’ skills, abilities, and perspectives. Each member should be content to do what God has given them the ability to do for the advancement of the work of the Church, without jealousy of another’s work or position. However, one task that belongs to every member is to seek and promote God’s truth, and warn those who are in error. The Lord tells us, “When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person to turn from their ways and they do not do so, they will die for their sin, though you yourself will be saved.” (Ezekiel 33:8, 9) For their own good, as well as the good of their fellow members, anyone detecting error should labor with the appropriate party or parties to correct that error, in the proper spirit of meekness and love.

“Love for Christ unites man to his fellow man in unselfish interest. This is the science of benevolence. He whose heart is filled with the love that centers in God, realizes that he must deal justly and tenderly with his fellow beings because they have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. Supreme love for God leads us to seek the highest good of humanity” (Review and Herald, June 25, 1908 par. 3).

Gospel Order, Pt. 8

Divine Warnings Against Disorganization

The divine establishment of gospel order gave authority to appointments to oversight and direction in the work. The spirit in the church was one of counsel, and of deference to church order and government. The gift of “governments,” which is the gift of administration and organization, is one of the spiritual gifts. The apostle, writing from Italy to the Hebrew churches in Judea and everywhere, gave the exhortation: “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account.” Heb. 13:17.
Again he wrote: “We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. And be at peace among yourselves.” 1 Thess. 5:12, 13.

Christ’s instruction regarding dealing with the erring shows that the visible church is a definitely organized body, not only having authority to maintain its unity and purity, but in duty bound to do so. Matt. 18:15-20; John 20:23. The spirit of prophesy says:—

Christ here gives no liberty for any man to pass judgment upon others. In the sermon on the mount he forbade this. It is the prerogative of God. But on the church in its organized capacity he places a responsibility for the individual members. Toward those who fall into sin, the church has a duty, to warn, to instruct, and if possible to restore. . . . Declare what God has said . . . If they persist in sin, the judgment you have declared from God’s Word is pronounced upon them in heaven. In choosing to sin, they disown Christ; the church must show that she does not sanction their deeds, or she herself dishonors her Lord. She must say about sin what God says about it. She must deal with it as God directs, and her action is ratified in heaven. He who despises the authority of the church, despises the authority of Christ himself. —“Desire of Ages,” pages 805, 806.

Before all the first apostles had passed away, the attack on the purity of the faith and the organization of the work had begun. The opposition of men who turned openly from the truth was not so deceptive and dangerous as that of those working from within. Hence Paul’s warning to the elders of Ephesus to take heed to themselves and to the flock, over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers; for men were to arise from within, teaching perverse things, and seeking to draw away the people after themselves. Acts 20:28-30.

Later, as apostasy further developed, Peter warned against those who in the name of greater liberty, would lead to the bondage of error. 2 Peter 2:19. They were opposed to the order and organization which hindered their efforts to tear down. They “despise government,” he says, “Presumptuous are they, self-willed.” Verse 10. Jude wrote of them also as despisers of dominion, or government. “These be they who separate themselves,” he said. Verse 19. As they could not dominate the organization, they drew apart and sought to separate churches and individuals from the movement.

The apostle John, who wrote latest of all, in all three of his epistles, warned against these influences. Of one experience, in which the pastor or officer of a church asserted its independence of apostolic oversight, refusing to receive the laborers sent to minister to it, he says: —

“I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.” 3 John 9.

No doubt this advocate of the independence of the churches from the general oversight established, was loud in his denunciation of the effort of the organized body to preserve the unity of the work. He prated against the apostle “with malicious words,” and had the word been coined then, he would surely have called the apostles’ effort popery. Inspiration says that his real difficulty was that he loved to have the preeminence among them. This was the spirit of self-exalting independence and disregard of gospel order and organization which led straight on to the papacy.

In this brief review of New Testament order we see the church established on the platform of truth, the whole body bound together in unity, possessed of the divine spirit of organization, with spiritual gifts and local and general officers set in it for the administration and government of its affairs in harmony and fellowship.

Christ was the leader and commander, guiding by the voice of the spirit of prophecy, and by the spiritual gifts promised to the church as it seeks his counsel.

Isaiah describes how the farmer plans with system and order his work of tilling the soil; “for his God doth instruct him to discretion, and doth teach him.” Isa. 28:26. The church is “God’s husbandry,” or “tillage.” 1 Cor. 3:9, margin. He who gives wisdom to the tiller of the soil to plan his work, is Counselor to the gospel church, to enable its work to be done with the system and order befitting its sacred character. “This also cometh forth from the Lord of hosts, which is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working.” Isa. 28:29.

As was shown John in The Revelation, Christ himself walks among the seven candlesticks, the churches, and holds the seven stars, the messengers of the churches, in his own right hand. His presence and guidance are promised “even unto the end of the world.”

He has been the leader in this advent movement, and by the counsels of his Word and through the spirit of prophecy the divine principles of order and organization have been applied to present-day needs and conditions. Every principle in the organization of our work today is found in the Word of God. As one united people, let us devote all our powers to the finishing of the work.

W. A. Spicer

(Review and Herald, May 13, 1909)

We Hold These Truths

This week we have something a little unusual to present for your consideration. On December 15, 1941 a special radio broadcast was carried on all the radio networks across the United States. This program was in commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the addition of the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. It was entitled "We Hold These Truths."

This program was part history and part entertainment, but it was also--and this is why we're featuring it--an exploration of the philosophy on which any democratic system of government must operate. The concepts it discusses are just as applicable to private organizations which run on democratic principles as they are to civil governments.

As you listen to this program please keep in mind that it is also a product of its time. Coming as it did just one week after the bombing of Pearl Harbor which plunged the United States into World War II, its conclusion speaks to the then-current world events with a distinctly militaristic flavor. We trust that all of our readers are mature enough to understand this context and not take offense.

You can follow this link to access an audio archive of this broadcast.

Gospel Order, Pt. 7

A Glimpse at the work Under the Apostle Paul’s Oversight

The apostle Paul’s commission to the Gentiles led him to the regions now known as the Levant and southern Europe. Associated with Paul were other apostles, as Barnabas and Appollos, with many evangelists and other laborers. But as the chosen apostle to the Gentiles, the responsibility of general oversight fell to him. He certainly had that spiritual gift of “governments,” so important in administering a work in which many are engaged. He was an organizer, as testified by every glimpse of his labors given us in the very brief record. His writings, more than any others, emphasize again and again the organic unity of the church of Christ, and the importance of recognizing gospel order and organization in gospel service.

As churches multiplied in all parts of his field, Paul was continually visiting them, or sending laborers among them, building them up in faith and unity. As the work grew, and particularly as disorderly and evil elements began to develop, it is plain from his epistles that the responsibility of his apostleship—bringing “the care of all the churches”—laid upon him a heavy burden. 2 Cor. 11:28. It was with him “daily.”

As the churches increased in the different provinces, those geographically located together were evidently grouped so as to act together as a conference of churches. Thus, “the churches of Galatia,” “the churches of Macedonia,” “the churches of Asia,” “all Achaia,” etc., were given direction by the apostle as to concerted action to be taken, or sent salutations to churches in other parts. When the general fund was to be made up for the Judean believers, Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “As I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.” 1 Cor. 16:1. The second epistle shows that this instruction was for the churches of “all Achaia,” of which province Corinth was the center. The churches were instructed to make up the gift, and to appoint representatives to go with it to Jerusalem. “Whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send.” The Macedonian churches had the same instruction, and sent a representative, “chosen of the churches,” to join in carrying the bounty to Judea. 2 Cor. 8:19. Thus each group of churches acted in concert, as one provincial or state conference organization, and had their representatives appointed to look after certain work.

Again, we find Paul appointing ministerial laborers to the general oversight of provinces or conferences. Timothy was assigned to the province of Asia for a time, with instruction from Paul as to the ordering of the churches, the appointment of elders and deacons, and the care of the general interests of the churches grouped together in that province. See 1 Timothy. Titus was assigned for a time to Crete: “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.” Titus 1:5.

As the one in charge of the work in Crete, Titus was asked to see that Zenas the lawyer and Apollos, when they should arrive, were sent forward on their journey, provided with means so that nothing should be lacking to them. Titus 3:13. Those were not the days of bank drafts and postal remittances; but the instructions to Titus, and other similar references, show provision of funds available for the conduct of the work. As Paul told the Corinthians, the Lord, who ordained men to the ministry of the temple in former times, had also made provision for their support, and “even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” 1 Cor. 9:14. They were familiar enough with the manner of supporting the Lord’s work in the former time, by tithes and offerings, and “even so” it was ordained that the work of the gospel should be carried forward.

While Paul acted with the authority of an apostle, called to the general oversight or “care of all the churches,” he assumed no arbitrary authority over any. “Not for that we have dominion over your faith,” he wrote, “but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.” 2 Cor. 1:24. Though evil men often represented him as self-seeking and arbitrary in his work, assuming authority not belonging to him, he was really servant of all. He counseled his associate workers, not as an overlord, but as a fellow laborer, a comrade in the common service. But, as some one must lead out in all associate work, there was a necessity in gospel effort for a directing supervision to keep all interests moving harmoniously forward. Hence ministers, like Mark, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Tychicus, Artemas, Crescens, and many others, were sent here and there, called to come and go, appointed to one field and then another, all responding as the loyal soldiers of Christ that they were. They recognized the increased efficiency given to their labors by organization and union of effort.

The unity of the world-wide work was provided for in the supervision of the committee of apostles, ordained to represent the whole church. Paul’s visits to Jerusalem to counsel with the other apostles, as well as his constant teachings, bear witness to his efforts to maintain union and co-operation between the churches in all the world. They were all members of the one body, Christ the head,—

“From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” Eph. 4:16.

The member is connected with the head only as it is a part of the body. Independent of the body, the hand or foot would be severed from connection with the head. The head can move the finger or the hand only as the finger or hand is united with the body.

The gifts of offices set in the church were to preserve the oneness and compactness of the body of Christ, the church, even after the first apostles had passed away. The churches were “set in order” by the appointment of proper officers. This was an important part of the ministerial oversight, and as Paul appointed Timothy to attend to this in Asia, and Titus in Crete, he gave instruction as to the qualifications of officers.

The elders were ordained to take “oversight” of the local church, not as “lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” 1 Peter 5:3. Careful selection was also to be made in filling “the office of a deacon,” as assistants to the elders in the administration of church work. 1 Tim. 3:8-15. The work of deaconess was also recognized. Rom 16:1, R.V., margin.

The church was an organized body, officered and equipped for harmonious and concerted service, every member having his responsibility and individuality before God, while this very relationship to God bound the members together in sacred fellowship with one another.

W. A. Spicer

(Review and Herald, May 6, 1909)

Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 35

“The Lord God of heaven has chosen experienced men to bear responsibilities in His cause. These men are to have special influence. If all are accorded the power given to these chosen men, a halt will have to be called. Those who are chosen to bear burdens in the work of God are not to be rash or self-confident or selfish. Never is their example or influence to strengthen evil. The Lord has not given men or women liberty to advance ideas that will bring commonness into His work, removing the sacredness that should ever surround it. God’s work is to become increasingly sacred to His people. In every way we are to magnify the exalted character of the truth. Those who have been set as guardians of the work of God in our institutions are ever to make the will and way of God prominent. The health of the general work depends upon the faithfulness of the men appointed to carry out the will of God in the churches” (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 9, p. 264).

“Phariseeism in the Christian world today is not extinct. The Lord … desires His people to remember that there is a large space over which the light of present truth is to be shed. Divine wisdom must have abundant room in which to work. It is to advance without asking permission or support from those who have taken to themselves a kingly power” (Manuscript Release No. 1112).

“There have ever been in the church those who are constantly inclined toward individual independence. They seem unable to realize that independence of spirit is liable to lead the human agent to have too much confidence in himself, and to trust in his own judgment rather than to respect the counsel and highly esteem the judgment of his brethren, especially of those in the offices that God has appointed for the leadership of His people. God has invested His church with special authority and power, which no one can be justified in disregarding and despising; for he who does this despises the voice of God.

"Those who are inclined to regard their individual judgment as supreme, are in grave peril. It is Satan's studied effort to separate such ones from those who are channels of light, through whom God has wrought to build up and extend His work in the earth. To neglect or despise those whom God has appointed to bear the responsibilities of leadership in connection with the advancement of the truth, is to reject the means that He has ordained for the help, encouragement, and strength of His people. For any worker in the Lord's cause to pass these by, and to think that his light must come through no other channel than directly from God, is to place himself in a position where he is liable to be deceived by the enemy, and overthrown. The Lord in His wisdom has arranged that by means of the close relationship that should be maintained by all believers, Christian shall be united to Christian, and church to church. Thus the human instrumentality will be enabled to co-operate with the divine. Every agency will be subordinate to the Holy Spirit, and all the believers will be united in an organized and well-directed effort to give to the world the glad tidings of the grace of God” (Gospel Workers, pp. 443, 444).

“There are today many who pursue a similar course [as King Saul]. Like Saul, they are blinded to their errors. When the Lord seeks to correct them, they receive reproof as insult, and find fault with the one who brings the divine message” (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 1014).

Gospel Order, Pt. 6

A General Council, or Conference

As churches increased, it was just as essential that they should keep in fellowship with one another as that individual members in the local church should be united as one body. Independent teachers had gone out from Jerusalem to the regions of Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, teaching contrary to the faith of the body. The need arose for the churches to deal with the matter, and it was arranged that representatives, or delegates, should be selected to attend a council, or conference, at Jerusalem. Just as soon as believers multiplied in various places, so that all could not meet together in one place, the plan of delegate assemblies was introduced.

The brief record of this conference is found in Acts 15. It is summarized in the following words of the spirit of prophecy: —

The council which decided this case was composed of the founders of the Jewish and Gentile Christian churches. Elders from Jerusalem, and deputies [delegates] from Antioch were present; and the most influential churches were represented. The council did not claim infallibility in their deliberations, but moved from the dictates of enlightened judgment, and with the dignity of a church established by the divine will.— "Life of Paul," page 70.

Because it was an assembly engaged in God's work, there was all the more reason that its business should be done "decently and in order." Again the spirit of prophecy says: —

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."

This ended the discussion. In this instance we have a refutation of the doctrine held by the Roman Catholic Church — that Peter was the head of the church. Those who, as popes, have claimed to be his successors, have no foundation for their pretensions. Nothing in the life of Peter gives sanction to those pretended claims. If the professed successors of Peter had imitated his example, they would have taken no authoritative position, but one on an equality with that of their brethren.

James, in this instance, seems to have been chosen to decide the matter which was brought before the council.— Id., pages 68, 69.

Because James was chosen as presiding officer, he was no more head of the general church than the presiding officer or elder of the local body of believers is head of the local church. The responsibilities of office in the work of the church, whether local or general, are not laid upon men as conferring lordship or headship over any, but as appointments to special service and leadership in the common work of the church. Christ is the head of every man, and the head of every church; because he is the head of the whole church, which is his body. Thus the plan of representative, or delegate, meetings was inaugurated: —

The entire body of Christians were not called to vote upon the question. The apostles and elders—men of influence and judgment—framed and issued the decree, which was thereupon generally accepted by the Christian churches. — Id., page 70.

The decisions of the conference were published by letter, and authorized representatives were furnished with credentials from the body to carry the word to those churches which had been disturbed by the work of the independent and self-appointed teachers. As the spirit of prophecy says: —

The four servants of God were sent to Antioch with the epistle and message, which put an end to all controversy; for it was the voice of the highest authority upon earth.— Id., page 70.

Paul and Silas went among the churches in Syria and Cilicia: —

"And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established in the truth, and increased in number daily." Acts 16:4, 5.

Others who went out from the conference must have done similar work elsewhere, for at the council there had been recognition and agreement as to assignment of general fields of labor. In behalf of the council, James, Peter, and John, upon whom the Lord had laid special burden for the work among the Jewish people, had given the right hand of fellowship to the apostles commissioned of the Lord to oversee the work among the Gentile peoples to the northward. Gal. 2:9.

We have this inspired record of the first general council, or conference, showing the church in council to establish harmonious action and co-operation among all the churches; while the churches truly connected with Christ, the head, recognized the united decisions of the conference as of authority, under the word of God, in order that harmony and unity might prevail.

But already there were springing up in the church those who sought to bring in separation and error. Their spirit was one of independence and anarchy. These were not ready to accept the decision of the conference. As the spirit of prophecy says:—

All were not pleased, however, with this decision; there was a faction of false brethren who assumed to engage in a work on their own responsibility. They indulged in murmuring and faultfinding, proposing new plans, and seeking to pull down the work of the experienced men whom God ordained to teach the doctrine of Christ. The church has had such obstacles to meet from the first, and will ever have them to the close of time. — Id., page 71.

These were the elements that led the way toward apostasy and the papacy. The papacy did not spring from any excess of zeal or loyalty to gospel order and recognition of the rightful authority of the church. It sprang from opposition to order and organization. It is the spirit that must have its own way despite the counsels of the Lord and of the brethren. Against every such influence that made for separation and division the Spirit of God ceased not to bear earnest testimony through New Testament times.

W. A. Spicer

(Review and Herald, April 29, 1909)

Gospel Order, Pt. 5

The New Testament Church at Work

The growth of the work brought increasing burdens of administrative detail. The whole body of believers were gathered about Jerusalem. There arose murmuring among the Grecians as to the distribution from the common treasury for the needy. Even with the twelve apostles looking after affairs there was chance for oversight or mistakes. But there was no suggestion that the systematic plan of work should be set aside, and that every one should manage independently and without co-operation. That was not the spirit in the church of Christ. Rather, the apostles saw the need of calling in other helpers to share responsibilities, and of strengthening the regular channels for carrying forward the financial side of the gospel work. They proposed the selection of a committee of brethren for this purpose: —

"Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business." Acts 6:2, 3.

"The saying pleased the whole multitude," and they chose this committee of seven. These were "set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." The Lord accepted the united decision of the believers, and Stephen, one of the seven, was the first martyr witness. As yet they were not called deacons, so far as the record goes. In the later development of organization we find the office of deacon a regular appointment in the churches.

In this emergency it was the need of the hour that led to the selection of men to the office and work. As conditions arose, the Spirit-guided church was alert to organize its work and appoint men to service as needs were recognized. It is for this that the offices or gifts of the Spirit are placed in the church. The plans agreed upon in the council of the apostles were laid before the believers, so that there was unity in the action taken. And those whom the Lord had ordained to the oversight of the work ordained the seven to their appointed office.

Of the lesson for our day in this record, the spirit of prophecy (with the church now, as in apostolic days, as a guiding voice) says: —

It is necessary that the same order and system should be maintained in the church now as in the days of the apostles. The prosperity of the cause depends very largely upon its various departments being conducted by men of ability, who are qualified for their positions. ... It is proper for all matters of a temporal nature to come before the proper officers, and be by them adjusted. But if they are of so difficult a character as to baffle their wisdom, they should be carried into the council of those who have the oversight of the entire church. —"Redemption, or the Ministry of Peter and the Conversion of Saul," pages 29, 30.

The call of Paul to the ministry and apostleship illustrates the Lord's recognition of the organized body of believers as his representative. By special revelation Christ appeared to Paul, but from his baptism to his ordination to the ministry, and appointment to the work to which he was called, the Lord worked through his appointed agency, the church. The spirit of prophecy draws the lesson of church order in this experience of Paul in these words : —

The Redeemer of the world does not sanction experience and exercise in religious matters independent of his organized and acknowledged church. Many have an idea that they are responsible to Christ alone for their light and experience, independent of his recognized followers on earth. But in the history of the conversion of Saul, important principles are given us, which we should ever bear in mind. He was brought directly into the presence of Christ. . . . He arrested his course and converted him; but when asked by him, "What wilt thou have me to do?" the Saviour placed him in connection with his church, and let them direct him what to do. ... In this case Ananias represents Christ, and also represents Christ's ministers upon earth, who are appointed to act in his stead. . . . All is done in the name and by the authority of Christ; but the church is the channel of communication.—"Life of Paul," pages 31, 32.

As believers sprang up in Antioch, the apostles and church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to labor there, and Paul joined him. To a number of ministering prophets and teachers, laboring at Antioch, in association with Barnabas and Paul, the word of the Holy Spirit came: —

"Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed." Acts 13:1-4.

Thus the Holy Spirit worked through the church and the gifts of ministry set in it, to ordain and commission men to the gospel service. The spirit of prophecy again points the lesson in gospel
order:—

Both Paul and Barnabas had been laboring as ministers of Christ, and God had abundantly blessed their efforts; but neither of them had previously been formally ordained to the gospel ministry by prayer and the laying on of hands. They are now authorized by the church, not only to teach the truth, but to baptize, and to organize churches, being invested with full ecclesiastical authority. . . . The brethren in Jerusalem and in Antioch were made thoroughly acquainted with all the particulars of this divine appointment, and the specific work of teaching the Gentiles, which the Lord had given to these apostles. Their ordination was an open recognition of their divine mission, as messengers specially chosen by the Holy Ghost for a special work.— "Life of Paul," pages 42, 43.

Later, as churches were raised up among the Gentiles, there came in questionings as to teaching and practise, brought about by unauthorized and independent teachers, who went among the churches. This led to the first general conference of the churches to decide upon the matter.

W. A. Spicer

(Review and Herald, April 22, 1909)

Gospel Order, Pt. 4

Organizing the New Testament Church

The unity of the church is one of its credentials from heaven: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." John 17:21. This oneness is not merely an agreement as to doctrine, but a unity in "walk," a maintenance of harmony that calls for the exercise toward one another of "lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Eph. 4:2, 3.

It requires no "endeavor," no lowliness, no devotion, to destroy the unity, and to walk independently of one another. But the endeavor and study of the members of Christ's church is to "keep the unity." The New Testament church, like the Old Testament church, is a unit. It is not a mass of detached fragments, but one people. No more closely are all the members of a local company of believers bound together in the local church, than all the churches are bound together in fellowship in "the church," which is "his body." "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Eph. 4:4, 5.

Christ, the Good Shepherd, gave his life for the sheep; not to set them wandering each his own way, but to gather them together. "Other sheep I have," he said, "which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." John 10:16. It is the wolf only that "scattereth the sheep," in order that he may destroy them. Verse 12. Whatsoever spirit tends to detach the members from one another and to separate them is of the enemy, and not of the Good Shepherd.

All the teaching of the New Testament emphasizes the organic unity of the church of Christ. It is "the household of God," "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." Eph. 2 :19-22.

In the architect's plan of a building, every part has its organic relation to every other part in making up the one complete structure. So the church, made up of parts, is "framed together," and "builded together," and "together groweth " unto one holy temple in the Lord.

As needful for the building up of the church and the maintenance of its unity to the end of time, the Lord set in it the spiritual gifts, "first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers," and evangelists, pastors, governments (the gift of administration and direction), and others. 1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4:11-16. And the spirit given to all believers by the new birth from above was the same spirit of love for order and organization that reigns above.

The New Testament shows the Lord at times giving direct instruction by the spirit of prophecy as to the development of organization according to the needs and conditions. Again we see the Spirit filled body of believers counseling together in general conference to secure concert of action. We see apostles, upon whom was laid the responsibilities of general oversight, and field laborers and believers praying together for wisdom better to organize their work, all recognizing as a gift from heaven any plan agreed upon that brought increased efficiency and closer union. The spirit that the New Testament church received was, in short, the spirit of "power, and of love, and of a sound mind." 2 Tim. 1: 7.

Two things we find were ever before that church,— the maintenance of purity and unity in the faith, and the carrying of the witness to the world. And in all the New Testament story we see that while the loyal believers were seeking these ends, disloyal or disorderly elements were seeking to introduce error or to bring about divisions and separations.

The first step in organizing the church of the New Testament was taken when Christ set in the body of believers the office of apostles. Out of the number of disciples he chose twelve —"whom also he named apostles"— and ordained them to the ministry and apostleship. Mark 3 and Luke 6. The spirit of prophecy says of this: —

The first step was now to be taken in the organization of the church that after Christ's departure was to be his representative on earth. ... As in the Old Testament the twelve patriarchs stand as representatives of Israel, so the twelve apostles were to stand as representatives of the gospel church.—"Desire of Ages," page 291.

Thus their office was not local but general, for the whole church. They were ordained to give themselves to the ministry of the Word and to the general oversight of the work of the church. As the work enlarged, others were called to the office and work of apostles. Their office unified the work of the churches as the gospel was carried far and wide.

After the ascension of Christ, the eleven apostles, in council with the believers, and with earnest prayer for guidance, appointed and ordained one of their number to the office of apostle in place of Judas. Then came the blessings of pentecost, and about ten thousand believers were gathered in Jerusalem. In the emergency there was need of means. Then those who had money brought it in and laid it at the feet of the apostles who were charged with the responsibility of guiding the work. Acts 4: 34-37. A common treasury, from which orderly and systematic distribution might be made through regular channels, was recognized as the right plan of carrying forward the work of looking after the needs of the thousands gathered there. And the point should be noted that the Spirit-filled church was ever seeking to do its work in the most systematic manner, recognizing divine authority in the gifts and offices placed in the church for the administration of its affairs.

W. A. Spicer

(Review and Herald, April 15, 1909)

Omega

During the course of the conflict over Kellogg’s pantheism, Ellen White made some statements about a repeat appearance of such apostasy to occur at the end of time. “In the book Living Temple there is presented the alpha of deadly heresies. The omega will follow, and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given” (Selected Messages, Vol.1, p.200). And again, “Be not deceived; many will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. We have now before us the alpha of this danger. The omega will be of a most startling nature” (Ibid, p.197).

When this omega apostasy will come, and in what form, has been a subject of interest since these statements were made. One interesting book on the subject has been written by Lewis R. Walton (Omega, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1981). Walton explores the developments of the alpha apostasy of Kellogg, analyzing the nature of the attack it made on the church with a view to identifying the characteristics by which the omega apostasy may be recognized. This list of characteristics makes an excellent checklist for recognizing any apostasy, whether “the omega” or any “ordinary” apostasy that may precede it. The characteristics he identified, writing 30 years ago, are chillingly visible today in regions of the Adventist Church where the philosophies of Paul Borden have become prominent. Consider:


We have seen something called the alpha apostasy sweep across the Seventh-day Adventist Church at the turn of the century. … And we have heard the warning that something even more dangerous would come someday. For that reason it is vitally important that we analyze what happened earlier and seek to recognize the signals that may herald the approach of the last great apostasy.

1. Deception: One of the major characteristics of the alpha was deceit. Sometimes outright untruths were told. Sometimes only part of the truth was given, and thus even truth could be made to give false impressions. Once Ellen White wrote to Dr. Kellogg advising him about a large building in Chicago. He often cited that testimony as proof that Ellen White was in error; no such building ever existed, he asserted smugly, and Sister White had simply been mistaken. What Dr. Kellogg did not bother to add was that his people at Battle Creek had fully intended to build it, proceeding so far as having a full set of architectural plans drawn, before the project got stopped.

Particularly did Mrs. White warn that some people would be dishonest about their belief in the Spirit of Prophesy and in the basic doctrines of the church. In vision she saw groups of people at Battle Creek counseling together and specifically planning to hide their antagonism to her writings and to certain fundamental beliefs. Thus concealing their true feelings, they felt they could more effectively appeal to Adventists who were basically loyal to the church and who would never listen to them if they disclosed their full intentions at the start. Again and again throughout the alpha one finds the truth being bent for the sake of some immediate goal. Perhaps Ellen White put it most graphically: “Mischievous tongues and acute minds, sharpened by long practice in evading the truth, are continually at work to bring in confusion.” [Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p.195] …

2. Divisiveness: The alpha disclosed the paradox of men claiming some wonderful new truth while at the same time dividing the church wherever their ideas were voiced. National boundaries seemed to have no effect on this splitting phenomenon. The Battle Creek tabernacle descended into turmoil. Churches in England, Scotland, and Wales also saw commotion when theories were advanced at variance from Adventist beliefs. Wisely, Christ has given His church the test of behavior by which the truth or falsity of new doctrine can be tested. Should the divisive elements of the alpha reappear in Adventism, history suggests that our people ought to be particularly wary.

3. Attack on fundamental beliefs: All major apostasies have shared the common ground of attacking the most basic Adventist beliefs, among which are the sanctuary, the investigative judgment, and the inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy. At the turn of the century Ellen White could recall that over the past fifty years significant efforts had been made to subvert the fundamental truths of the church, particularly those of the sanctuary doctrine. To the student of history it is fascinating to watch this particular attack recur cyclically, each time with new fervor, as though it is being discovered for the first time. Often, advocates of change will use the rationale that even Ellen White urged receptivity to new light. They seldom add the conditions upon which she urged this: counsel with the brethren of experience, and if the organized church does not see value in the idea, let it rest. And in no event will “new light” obliterate long-established fundamental truths. “Men and women will arise professing to have some new light or some new revelation, whose tendency is to unsettle faith in the old landmarks. …False reports will be circulated, and some will be taken in this snare. They will believe these rumors, and in their turn will repeat them. … Through this means many souls will be balanced in the wrong direction.” [Counsels to Writers and Editors, pp.49, 50] …

4. Covert attacks on the structure of the church: One of the most startling charges ever made by Ellen White was that “spies” were at work, seeking to subvert even the basic structure of the church. Conscious plans were laid to gain control of major institutions. Even conferences were threatened by this tactic, she said. In vision she witnessed secret meetings in which men planned how they could best gain control, win the sympathies of the people, and alter the structure of the church, and she described a conspiracy in which men were “linked together to support one another.” [Letter to G.C. Tenney, June 29, 1906] One can hope, but it would be naïve to assume, that such a threat would not be faced again. It is a particularly deadly threat to the work of God because it proceeds so quietly, spreading beneath the surface of an apparent calm until it is too late. If one is looking for indicia of the omega, this is a factor that cannot safely be ignored. And there are signs for which history tells us to look. Political struggles within a church or conference, as happened at Battle Creek. Evidence of well-organized movements at committee and constituency meetings that advocate ideas counter to the positions of the church. Widespread attacks against those who urge loyalty to the organized church and its teachings. Manipulation of institutional funds. (A famous book attacking the Spirit of Prophesy came out of the Battle Creek Sanitarium, written by doctors on its staff; funding for the project occurred under the most mysterious circumstances.) And perhaps the most disheartening sign of all, readily visible in the alpha: ministers, still on church payroll, who may profess loyalty but whose actions tend to support movements at variance from the church. All are the visible signs of something very much larger. In a spectacular vision in 1904 Ellen White saw the church, symbolized as a ship, heading toward an iceberg. Only the tip of the iceberg could be seen, but it disclosed a danger that was deadliest below the waterline. The divine instruction was to “meet it”—hit it head-on. There would be a bone-jolting collision; everyone aboard would be shaken, but the ship would remain afloat. Hit the obstacle a glancing blow, and one would only open a gash into which the sea would flood uncontrollably. …The lesson of the symbol is crystal-clear: many of the dangers the church will face are hidden beneath the surface, disclosed only by a few indicia that are just the tip of a larger iceberg. These are the deadliest threats of all, and in Ellen White’s vision they were met by hitting the obstacle head-on, with all the force the church could muster.

5. Special efforts to attract the youth: John Harvey Kellogg wrote a book in which he advanced ideas that could “sweep away the whole Christian economy.” [Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, p.37] He insisted on publishing it after Ellen White had warned against the subtleties of pantheism, after the General Conference had voted the project down, after the Review and Herald had burned to the ground. Upon publication he immediately courted the young people of the church, seeking them as allies in distributing his new theology. Every effort was made to reach the youth, including the reopening of Battle Creek College against divine counsel, preparation of special brochures aimed at young minds, and sending out representatives who actively recruited the youth for the Battle Creek venture. If he had been successful, the history of the Adventist Church might have been different. …

6. Special attacks on the Spirit of Prophecy: Few elements of the church draw so much fire during apostasy as does the Spirit of Prophecy. “The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. … Satan will work ingeniously in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God’s remnant people in the true testimony.” [Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p.48] Upon a little reflection it becomes apparent why this is so. Deception at the very end of time will be extremely powerful and subtle, and the promise is given that “all who believe that the Lord has spoken through Sister White, and has given her a message, will be safe from the many delusions that will come in these last days.” [Letter 50, 1906] It would be astonishing if satanic power were not directed against this vital help for God’s people. Sadly, he gains some of his strongest allies in the form of Adventists who depart the faith in search of something new, and who were conditioned to do that by first rejecting the truth God had left in their path. …

7. A climate of personal attack: Repeatedly in the alpha one sees authoritarian coercion on the part of those advocating the new teachings. Opposition to their ideas seems to have evoked a very personal reaction, to which they responded with personal attacks. In describing this unique feature of the apostasy, Mrs. White said that “nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement.” [Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p.205] This is borne out as we recall the incident when the General Conference leader was threatened by a young worker avidly supporting the new theology. That gentleman warned that if Elder Daniells did not line up, he would be turned out of office and “rolled in the dust.” Many, including Kellogg and Ballenger, attacked Ellen White. Opposition to the alpha seemed to be the signal for an attack against anyone, including the highest levels of church leadership, who opposed it. That too is a type of behavior for which Adventists should be watchful as the omega approaches.

8. Attacks on church standards: The ideals of the Seventh-day Adventist Church have always been high, a behavioral message to the world that humanity will soon stand before a righteous God. Frequently those standards have been attacked by people who claim that Adventists are legalists trying to work their way to heaven. When that accusation comes from outside the church, most of God’s people are able to recognize it for what it is. But what would be the effect of that attack should it ever come from inside the church? The Spirit of Prophecy has a sobering answer, given in the very words of Lucifer as he counsels with his fallen angels on how best to destroy the Seventh-day Adventist Church:

“‘Through those that have a form of godliness but know not the power, we can gain many who would otherwise do us harm. Lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God will be our most effective helpers. Those of this class who are apt and intelligent will serve as decoys to draw others into our snares. Many will not fear their influence, because they profess the same faith. We will thus lead them to conclude that the requirements of God are less strict than they once believed, and that by conformity to the world they would exert a greater influence with worldlings. Thus they will separate from Christ; then they will have no strength to resist our power, and erelong they will be ready to ridicule their former zeal and devotion.’” [Testimonies to Ministers, p.474, italics supplied]

9. The claim of a reform message for the church: There is terrible danger in misidentifying this point, for the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy plainly indicate that there will be reform in God’s church; the problem is in identifying the true and separating it from the false. Fortunately, there is an answer.

“The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith.” [Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p.204] The test, therefore, seems to be whether “reform” agrees with established truth (in which case it is the true reform that matters, reform of life) or whether it urges abandonment of old truths in favor of something new (in which case it is a spurious reform of doctrine rather than life). It may be that this is a danger against which Adventists ought especially to guard. They are a reform-minded people; their whole message urges reformation. And hence if the enemy comes to them through this avenue, there is a possibility they might be more easily deceived, simply because the “goal” of the new doctrine seems to be something everyone has always wanted. The discriminating test is simple: Does the new teaching urge reform of life, or change of established truth?

(Omega, pp.77-85)

Gospel Order, Pt. 3

Old Testament Illustrations

The account of the efforts of Balaam to curse Israel throws an interesting sidelight upon the influence of unity and order as a testimony to the world and a protection to the church. By two means the children of God bear witness to the world of the divine origin of the church, by the purity of their faith and by their unity. These two features are mentioned in Christ's prayer: "Sanctify them through thy truth," and, "That they all may be one." Paul refers to the same points in Col. 2:5: "Beholding your order, and the steadfastness of your faith."

When Balaam sought to bring a curse upon Israel, he found that their thorough organization interposed a barrier to his hopes. The spirit of prophecy says: —

As Balaam looked upon the encampment of Israel, he beheld with astonishment the evidence of their prosperity. They had been represented to him as a rude, disorganized multitude, . . . but their appearance was the reverse of all this. He saw the vast extent and perfect arrangement of their camp, everything bearing marks of thorough discipline and order. He was shown the favor with which God regarded Israel, and their distinctive character as his chosen people.—"Patriarchs and Prophets," page 447.

Their order was evidence that God was with Israel, and Balaam was constrained to say, "The Lord his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them." Thereupon he set himself to corrupt their faith. These have ever been the two lines of attack — to introduce error and to break up the unity.

The Lord does not design that his children shall be isolated from one another, each going his way independent of others. In fellowship is strength, and "in the multitude of counselors there is safety." When the children of Israel became settled in their land, the families and tribes were not to maintain themselves in isolation. By their annual gatherings they were brought together, not only to worship before the Lord at Jerusalem, but to have the benefit of association. In commenting on this arrangement, the spirit of prophecy says: —

We sustain a loss when we neglect the privilege of associating together to strengthen and encourage one another in the service of God. The truths of his Word lose their vividness and importance in our minds. ... In our intercourse as Christians we lose much by lack of sympathy with one another. He who shuts himself up to himself, is not filling the position that God designed he should. — "Patriarchs and Prophets," page 541.

No individual, no church, no section, can prosper, severed from the body of believers.

The description of the band of men who brought David to his throne teaches a lesson in organization. We read (1 Chronicles 12) that among them were "the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their commandment." The fact that they all knew what Israel ought to do in that critical time was assurance that they would, in the language of Paul, be "subject one to another," choosing earnest leaders to secure harmonious action, in order that every man's work might count for the most. Of the entire body gathered from different tribes of Israel, we read: "All these men of war, that could keep rank, came with a perfect heart." The disposition and ability to keep rank and work loyally together in fellowship comes with the "perfect heart" as a gift of God. All together they were "a great host like the host of God." "And David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, and with every leader." 1 Chron. 13:1.

In the rebuilding of Jerusalem, after the captivity, Nehemiah gives an illustration of the strength there is in union of effort. The work was systematically planned, so that each company knew exactly the portion of the entire task for which it was directly responsible. Yet no one's work was finished until all was done. As the work drew toward completion, the enemies of Israel without the camp and within frantically renewed their efforts to throw the work and workers into confusion, and to break down the organized effort. But as the people prayed and watched, and more thoroughly organized their forces, the counsels of the enemy were brought to naught. While half of the people wrought at the work, the other half were on guard. The people "had a mind to work," and they co-operated as one man. Signals were arranged by those having general supervision, so that all could rally to the same point in a crisis. Nehemiah said to the leaders and people: "The work is great and large, and we are separated upon the wall, one far from another. In what place therefore ye hear the sound of the trumpet, resort ye thither unto us: our God shall fight for us." Neh. 4:19, 20. It was one work, one wall, one people; and a united effort at last achieved success.

This lesson is written for our learning; for the work of the gospel message that is to gather out the residue of God's people, including the remnant church, from every land and nation, is likened by Inspiration to the building up again of the ruins of the tabernacle of David, which had fallen down. Acts 15:15-17. With our lines extending throughout the whole earth, and the enemy ever watching to break up the forces and weaken the hands of the workers, more than ever at any time in the history of God's work is there need for such thorough organization as will enable the whole body of believers to strengthen one another's hands in the service. It is one world-wide work, and a united people is to do it. The Old Testament prophets, who in vision saw the final triumph of the church, bear witness to this. "Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion." Isa. 52: 8.

W. A. Spicer

(Review and Herald, April 8, 1909)

Gospel Order, Pt. 2

"The Church in the Wilderness"

The organization of "the church in the wilderness," the people of Israel under the exodus movement, provided for the distribution of responsibility, the sharing of burdens, and the unity of the whole. Individuals were associated together in the small group, the small groups were joined in larger, these into still larger associations, and the larger organizations were united in the general. Before the people of Israel came to Sinai, Jethro, priest of Midian, visited their camp and saw the burdens pressing upon Moses. He said to Moses: —

"Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee. . . . Provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee." Ex. 18:19-22.

The spirit that was in Moses, of wisdom and judgment and good sense, led him to accept plans that provided for organization of the work. As stated in "Patriarchs and Prophets:"—

The Lord had greatly honored Moses, and had wrought wonders by his hand; but the fact that he had been chosen to instruct others did not lead him to conclude that he himself needed no instruction. The chosen leader of Israel listened gladly to the suggestions of the godly priest of Midian, and adopted his plan as a wise arrangement.— Page 301.

At Sinai, under the Lord's direct instruction through his prophet, the organization was further perfected. As the work developed, showing need of additional features of organization, the Lord gave instruction that additional helpers should be chosen to discharge the duties of oversight that necessarily come wherever multitudes are associated in a common work. After departing from Sinai, Moses found the burdens too heavy, and begged for release. Then the Lord said: —

"Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone." Num. 11: 16, 17.

Wherever the Lord has called men to a sacred work, he has given them the spirit to organize their forces for the greatest efficiency and harmony of effort. Of these features in Israel the following paragraph gives the briefest summary : —

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.

This is a divinely set object-lesson of the importance of the orderly arrangement of the affairs of the cause of God in these last days: —

The travels of the children of Israel are faithfully described; the deliverance which the Lord wrought for them, their perfect organization and special order, their sin in murmuring against Moses and thus against God, their transgressions, their rebellions, their punishments, their carcasses strewn in the wilderness because of their unwillingness to submit to God's wise arrangements,— this faithful picture is hung up before us as a warning lest we follow their example of disobedience, and fall like them. . . .

"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall." Has God changed from a God of order ? — No; he is the same in the present dispensation as in the former. Paul says, "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." He is as particular now as then. And he designs that we should learn lessons of order and organization from the perfect order instituted in the days of Moses, for the benefit of the children of Israel.—"Testimonies for the Church," Vol. I, pages 652, 653.

Often in Israel men rose in rebellion against the manner in which the Lord led his people forward. The disaffection led by Korah, Dathan, and Abiram illustrates the basis on which elements of opposition, seeking supremacy to carry out their own ideas, have often made complaints against order. Those chosen to the responsibility of leading, whether in local or general organizations, hold no position as a matter of lordship over others, but rather as servants of all, under the Lord. It is the Lord's arrangement for maintaining the orderly conduct of his work.

Though Moses and Aaron had assumed nothing of themselves, the cry was raised by Korah, Dathan, and Abiram that they were usurping authority. The charge was, "Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?" Num. 16: 3. They preached an individualism and independence that ignored the divine principles of fellowship and mutual relationships in the church of God. Every discordant element in the camp was organized under the leadership of these men to strike at the divinely approved organization which stood in the way of their efforts to secure control of the movement and divert it from God's purpose. If these men could not have their own way, they were determined to wreck the movement. The Lord vindicated his truth and his servants, and saved his people, though many perished in apostasy.

W. A. Spicer

(Review and Herald, April 1, 1909)

Gospel Order, Pt. 1

What is the proper relationship between the individual church member and the church organization?

This is a question we would like to explore. We begin with an eight part series of articles entitled “Gospel Order” which were published in the Review and Herald in 1909. These articles discuss the examples of organization seen throughout the Bible and the lessons to be learned from them:


(MARCH 25, 1909)

Gospel Order — No. 1
The Divine Principle of Organization

The Lord is a God of order. All his works reveal the perfection and simplicity of divine organization, "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 1 Cor. 14:33.

The church of Christ is to reveal on earth the order and harmony of the kingdom of heaven. The "Great Shepherd of the sheep" leads the flock of God. The closer the members of the flock press to the Shepherd, the closer do they press together. And the counsel of the Lord through the spirit of prophecy to all believers just now is, "Press together, press together."

The Lord led the church of the exodus out of Egypt, and by the gift of prophecy organized it as one body to represent the unity of his work. He led forth the church of apostolic days, as one body, its organization being developed according to the need, under the instructions of the gift of prophecy placed in the church. In this advent movement he has raised up a church to bear the final gospel message to the world. He has organized the movement as one united body, giving instruction by the gift of prophecy placed in the church.

There were in "the church in the wilderness" those who rebelled against the organization that maintained unity and order. There were those in apostolic days who worked against the order and harmony of the church. There have now and then appeared in our own midst those who have opposed the order and organization established in the church in harmony with the Word of God and the counsel of the spirit of prophecy. But all along — in the wilderness, in apostolic days, in these last days — it has been God's order and God's leadership in the church that has been set aside.

"God is not the author of confusion." He is the author of order. Every thought in divine organization is to secure to his children the greatest liberty to develop a godly character. Harmony with God's order is Christian liberty. "So long as all created beings acknowledged the allegiance of love," says the spirit of prophecy, "there was perfect harmony throughout the universe of God."

Lucifer is the author of confusion. Coveting the supremacy that belonged to Christ, he charged that the order and harmony of heaven imposed a restraint upon the liberty of the angels. So came rebellion in heaven. "It was pride and ambition that prompted Lucifer to complain of the government of God, and to seek the overthrow of the order which had been established in heaven. Since his fall it has been his object to infuse the same spirit . . . into the minds of men."— "Patriarchs and Prophets," page 403. His principles make for separation and disorder.

If it be but secular work in which numbers of people are engaged together, the value of system and organization is universally recognized by the thoughtful and successful. Much more is organization to be valued in God's work, in which "all things" are to be "done decently and in order." I Cor. 14:40.

The organization of believers is no arbitrary or mechanical arrangement, but the natural and spiritual expression of Christian fellowship in service, a means of personal strength and blessing to the individual, and a sign of the "unity of the Spirit" among the members making up the "one body." The spirit of prophecy says: —

“Angels work harmoniously. Perfect order characterizes all their movements. The more closely we imitate the harmony and order of the angelic host, the more successful will be the efforts of these heavenly agents in our behalf. . . . Those who have the unction from on high, will in all their efforts encourage order, discipline, and union of action, and then the angels of God can co-operate with them. But never, never will these heavenly messengers place their indorsement upon irregularity, disorganization, and disorder. All these evils are the result of Satan's efforts to weaken our forces, to destroy courage, and prevent successful action. ... It is his studied effort to lead professed Christians just as far from heaven's arrangement as he can; therefore he deceives even the professed people of God, and makes them believe that order and discipline are enemies to spirituality. . . . All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery.— "Testimonies for the Church," Vol. I, page 649.

But all the Bible history shows that thorough organization is one of the heavenly appointed safeguards against popery. This is why those who have risen in rebellion against the truth, to lead away disciples after themselves, have always struck at organization. This has been as a hedge round about the people of God, securing the protection of the angelic host.

The details of organization may vary according to conditions and work, but ever as God has called his church together there has appeared in it the spiritual gift of order and of government, the spirit that rules in heaven. Harmony with God's truth and work for the time has been shown by orderly and harmonious co-operation with the body of believers. And all along the enemy who began his attack on organization in heaven, in order to detach the angels from the ranks and lead them astray, has worked against the organization of the body of believers on earth, in order to divide and scatter.

W. A. Spicer

Conclusions from Our Roots

We have, from the beginning of our protestations about the governance debacle at Takoma Park, insisted that the changes were not just a bad idea poorly implemented, but a change antithetical to Adventism itself. That is a grand claim, which we have undertaken to substantiate through the post series, Our Roots. Having proceeded through that historical exploration we are now prepared to tie together all the strands and prove this claim.

We have begun this process already with several earlier posts. The Lessons from Our Roots (posted January 18, 2011) highlighted the fact that as our church founders began the conversation about organization they took care to allow adequate time and discussion on the matter and to maintain a respectful tone toward all those participating in the discussions. The Principles of Organization (posted March 2, 2011) showed that those early attitudes of openness and mutual consideration were formalized in the principles of free discussion, consensus decisions, representative government, transparency, simplicity, utility, stewardship, and coordinated effort which characterized the system of government that was eventually established. These basic principles have continued to be the basis of Adventist governance at all levels of the church organization since it was first established.

In Principle Over Form (posted July 1, 2011) the question of the changeability of the Adventist governance system was explored. It was seen that the principles which are the basis of the Adventist governance system are not to change. It was also seen that the practice of those principles can become corrupted over time, in which case the practices may periodically need to be reviewed and revised if such a drift is found to have taken place, but no one should ever entertain the thought that the principles themselves are open to revision. The Spirit of Prophesy is very clear on this.

Principle Over Form also pointed out that there is a distinction between principles and form. While the principles are nonnegotiable, God allows church members to choose the form of governance for themselves, provided it is 1) in harmony with the principles, 2) furthers the mission of the church, and 3) is established to be the will of the world church by being duly processed and voted on through the proper channels. This distinction was borne out as we saw the unfolding of the Kellogg/Jones situation. Ellen White had nothing to say about proposed changes to the form of governance until the proposals began to include changes to principle, at which time she became very vocal in her opposition to them.

Throughout Our Roots we have seen a tug-of-war over the balance of power in the denomination. We saw the bottleneck of power in the General Conference during the 1880s and 1890s which was broken when a group of leaders, supported by Ellen White, got together at the 1901 General Conference Session and insisted that the Session address the matter of reorganization. We saw the strengthening of the position of the General Conference at the 1903 Session, after the previous two years proved that the changes of 1901 had made it too weak in some respects. We saw the Kellogg/Jones challenge to any kind of formal organization at all, to which the denomination responded by presenting the membership with rational arguments explaining the hazards of their position and disproving the lies which supported it. We saw another movement to delegate power in 1913 through the creation of the divisions, and how that power shift was tempered in the adjustments of 1918.

One thing we have never seen in this examination of organizational history is any situation in which leadership simply ordered members to accept a change decided on by administrators alone or take their word for the truth of a position. In every instance of power shift mentioned above, the options, issues, and positions of the participants were freely discussed and openly considered in appropriate forums without any accusations of disloyalty or disobedience to the church or church leadership because of the expression of those differing opinions. Even Kellogg and Jones were given every opportunity to express their positions and support them as best they could. It was only after it was clearly seen by all that those positions were wholly incompatible with those of the denomination, and that the gentlemen refused to change their positions, that they were removed from membership.

There are four basic conclusions we take away from this historical exploration of Adventist governance:

1) The Adventist system is unlike any other standard pattern of church governance. The church founders had two primary concerns as they initially considered organization which continue to impact the nature of Adventist governance. The first was a desire to have an organization strong enough to effectively conduct mission. The second was a fear of having an organization so strong that it could become a dictatorial “Babylon.” The desire for effective mission suggested a top-down form of governance that could efficiently make decisions and wield resources, but this would have the disadvantage of possibly leading to the very Babylon they feared. Babylon could be prevented with a bottom-up organization in which the voice of the people would be paramount as safeguard and driving force, but bottom-up religious associations tend to be very weak on top, which could impede the effective mission they desired. So the founders of Adventist governance created a system which was neither top-down nor bottom-up, but rather took elements from both models to act as checks and balances for each other and form an organization that was effective in mission without becoming overbearing.

Under this hybrid system of governance power is derived from the vote of the people, but some of that power is voluntarily surrendered as each unit of the church organization chooses to join a larger unit of organization (congregation joining conference, conference joining union, etc.). That surrendered power is in the form of rules and policies the unit agrees to be bound by and counsel it agrees to accept from the organization above it. In turn, the direction of the higher organization in these matters is controlled by the fact that the constituent entities elect the officers of these higher organizations.

2) The Adventist system of governance assumes—and depends on—integrity throughout its components. Because of this, there is little to nothing by way of systemic checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. It is simply taken for granted that by designating certain functions to the voice of the people and others to the clergy/higher organization that these two elements will hold each other in balance and all parties involved (being Christian, after all) possess sufficient integrity to not seek more power than they are allotted.

Realistically, this doesn’t always work so well. While it is fine to say that if one side of this balance is getting too strong the other side should step up and pull them back, if one side is too strong it is generally because the other side is too weak to pull them back. This makes it extremely difficult to correct an imbalance in either direction. The intervention of a higher level of governance is generally required, but even then there is only so much a higher level can do without overstepping its authority. (The situation is somewhat easier if the imbalance is caused by an excess of pastoral/system power—assuming the higher organization is willing to pull back their own agents/efforts—but that’s a subject for a different post).

Certain limited options do exist for the higher organization to take disciplinary action against individuals (or even entire church units) in extreme circumstances. There are no such safeguards against excesses of power by the higher organization except for constituents to vote out of office the personnel engaging in those excesses.

3) Local Adventist governance is inseparable from global Adventist governance. The system of governance in the local Adventist congregation is the same hybrid system which balances the power in the higher levels of Adventist organization. This system is realized in the local congregation through its local officer elections and the say-so of these officers in running the congregation through the church board. It is also realized in the power of the people’s voice being limited by having that governance body chaired by a pastor of the conference’s choosing and on the conference’s payroll, by being obligated to remit all tithe to the conference, and by adhering to the Church Manual. In this way the voice of the people can present many different ideas and opinions and give the people “ownership” of the resulting decisions, while the voice of the professional clergy gives solid theological and missional foundation. This being a working out of the pattern to be found throughout Adventist governance, it cannot be altered without unbalancing the system in some other part of the organization.

Why should breaking away from this system make the higher organization fall apart? Without a strong higher organization the focus of a congregation tends to turn inward rather than being on mission. And even if mission continues, it tends to be strictly local, losing the big picture of worldwide needs and thereby losing the outreach identity of the denomination. But if the higher organization is so strong that clergy dominate every facet of local church life, freedom of conscience is subordinated to the leader and the people no longer “own” the purpose and plans of the church. This creates formalism and spiritual stagnation. Adventist governance must maintain the balance between the strength of the organization and the voice of the people at all levels of the governance structure if it is to carry out its missional purpose.

4) The church is not a chasm, on one side of which are the people who command and on the other side of which are the people who obey. There is no caste system within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. All members are part of the royal priesthood of God and as such are not only invited but required to be thinking, active, and knowledgeable participants in the operation of the denomination. No one gets to sit on the sidelines and let someone else direct their religious experience for them.

The integrity of the Adventist governance system is dependent on an active membership which thinks. A thinking membership that acts according to those thoughts—rather than blindly following the lead of the clergy—is the designated balance for excesses of power by the clergy. We cannot say this strongly enough. It is not the job of the higher organization to stop a misuse of power by clergy. They may seek to guide and counsel their subordinates who have gone astray, but the primary task of reigning in such excesses belongs to the lay membership. The way the membership does this is by exercising their right to speak and vote in the meetings of the church.

To summarize our conclusions even more succinctly, Adventist governance is a delicately balanced system designed to maximize missional effectiveness while minimizing the risk of power abuses. Messing with any small part of the system is messing with the whole system, so unless the changes are made globally the results can be devastating.

Having examined the governance philosophies of Paul Borden in depth in the post series Bullseye (posted between April 12 and June 11, 2010) we won’t detail them here beyond what is necessary to explain the results of implementing them in Adventist congregations. Borden assumes that a church is starting with a classic bottom-up governance system—congregationalism. Under this system a local church may have loose ties to a higher organization, but they are strictly voluntary and all real decision-making power is retained locally. Borden recognizes that this arrangement lacks the strength to move forward purposefully, so he seeks to balance the situation by giving greater strength to the clergy. The problem is that he goes about this in exactly the opposite way of how Adventist governance does. There are three essential opposites:

1A. Borden assumes that pastoral assignments (and the hiring, paying, directing and firing that go along with them) are controlled by the congregation.
1B. Under the Adventist system pastoral assignments are controlled by the conference rather than the congregation.

2A. Borden gives local operational decisions to the pastor.
2B. Adventism gives local operational decisions to the democratic functions of the church board, which is populated by lay leaders.

3A. Borden assumes that any higher levels of organization have no legal or operational control over the congregation.
3B. Adventism specifies that conferences exert certain legal and operational limits over the local congregation.

Either system on its own has a certain balance. Borden gives the work to the pastor and the inducements to make the pastor work to the congregation. Under this system the higher organization avoids getting involved in local matters. Adventism gives the work to the congregation and gives them a pastor to help them get it done. Under this system the higher organization gives the pastor the inducements to get the work done.

But when Bordenism is introduced in Adventist congregations, you give the work to the pastor, the congregation is expected to stand back and let the pastor act however he chooses, and the higher organization which controls the inducements refuses to get involved. This half-of-one-and-half-of-the-other system leaves no balance, no control, and no accountability.

How much more clearly could we possibly say it? Bordenism destroys the delicate balance of the hybrid system of Adventist governance. For this reason, Bordenism and Adventism simply do not mix.