Our Roots, Pt. 26

Despite tensions among the auxiliaries, the early 1890s were good times for the Adventist Church. Its membership was multiplying, as were its schools (from maybe a dozen in 1888 to 464 in 1903), publishing houses (which grew more in size than number), and health institutions (from two in 1888 to 24 major institutions and a number of smaller ones in 1901). The Church was also seeing unprecedented financial growth. Unfortunately, all of this growth was not managed well.

Many church leaders at that time operated on the principle that financing should be a matter of faith. They would undertake to build schools and other institutions without adequate financial resources to accomplish the project and make up the difference with loans, believing that the Lord would provide the needed means if they would step out in faith to begin the work. It didn’t entirely work that way. Even in those prosperous financial times newly erected institutions almost immediately had difficulty with sustaining themselves financially. Many sought to alleviate their financial difficulties by asking the General Conference to take direct control of them (and thereby access the GC’s coffers) but the GC was also overspending and therefore unable to do so, no matter how much it would have liked to have the offered control.

There was some debate about whether such emphasis should be placed on establishing institutions. Some argued that they got in the way of the Church’s gospel mission and that the money expended on them would be better used in direct evangelism. Others declared that they were the best means of accomplishing that very mission. But since each kind of institution fell under the jurisdiction of a different auxiliary, and no one had any effectual coordinating control over all the auxiliaries, no arguments on either side of this issue really had any effect in making this institutional growth more strategic.

The general lack of financial accountability during this period can be seen in the following anecdote told by Ellen White in a speech sometime later.

“When I was living in Cooranbong, the need of the Southern field was opened before me. In the night season I was standing before a large congregation, making an appeal to them. That night I arose at eleven o'clock and began to write out this appeal. The money raised in response to this appeal was not to be sent to places which had received help. It was to be sent to places which had not received help. It was to be sent to the field where a beginning must be made, where everything was wrong, where help must be given in order for anything to be done.

“About $11,000 was raised in response to this appeal, and I waited and waited to see what was done with this money. Edson kept writing to me, saying that he wanted to do this and that to start the work, but could not for want of means. In this work he found people who needed clothing and he longed to be able to relieve their necessities, but his wages were small and he had very little money to do anything with. I tried to help him, giving him an order on the Review and Herald for $400, which money he was to use in clothing the naked and feeding the hungry.

“Where did the money go that was raised for the Southern field? How long has it been since that money was raised? It was raised five years ago, but I do not know where it went, and if there is anyone here who has knowledge on this point, I wish he would tell me. Those who kept back the money that was raised for the Southern field in response to my appeal are accountable to God, for He led me to make this appeal” (Sermons and Talks, Vol. 2, pp.158 & 159).

The Church’s financial situation dramatically worsened when in 1895 the Church began to feel the effects of a global economic recession. This recession had actually begun in 1893, but giving had remained strong through 1894. When the flow finally ebbed in 1895 the Church found itself in serious financial trouble. Some of the state conferences had modest financial reserves, but they were the exception rather than the rule. With obligations exceeding income (even after such desperate measures as allowing themselves to fall behind on employee salaries) the denomination’s debt soared. It became financially impossible for the Church to send missionaries into new mission fields.

The financial problems, stalled mission growth, and lack of institutional strategy increased the pressure for organizational reforms which would allow more strategic planning and management of the Church’s activities and resources.

Next: Prophetic Critiques

Our Roots, Pt. 25

When the 1893 General Conference Session failed to recommend broad organizational reforms the leaders in Australasia decided to enact some changes for themselves. W. C. White, who was the district superintendent for Australasia, had a plan for creating an intermediate level of Church government between the local and General conferences—the Union Conference. In developing this plan he was following Olsen’s intention of having the district superintendents take on much of the responsibility then resting with the General Conference President, but he pushed the idea somewhat further than what Olsen had in mind.

What White was envisioning went beyond an administrative assignment of territory. His plan called for local conferences to join together in a regional constituency with its own constitution, officers, and executive committee. Put another way, the difference between Olsen’s plan and White’s plan was that under Olsen’s plan the power came from the General Conference down to the regional district, whereas in White’s plan the power came up from the members through the congregations and conferences to make a self-ruled region.

In 1893 W. C. White invited Olsen to visit Australia and preside over the meeting where his plan would be enacted. Olsen was wary of this innovation, but he went. On January 19, 1894 the proposed constitution was accepted and the Australasian Union Conference was created. W. C. White was chosen and its president and A. G. Daniells as its vice president. It had an executive committee of nine.

The General Conference executive committee reacted to the creation of the Australasian Union by setting limits on the purposes of the meetings of its other districts. On April 17, 1894 an executive committee subcommittee tasked with defining the authority of district meetings declared that those meetings were for Bible study and making plans to implement in their districts the overall plans that had been made by the General Conference. It was made quite clear that they were absolutely not to make any plans not conceptually approved by the General Conference.

The 1895 General Conference Session eased these restrictions somewhat. That Session voted the creation of district executive boards to be composed of the district superintendent, the local conference presidents, and representatives of the local mission boards. These boards were given a very specific and limited list of issues which they were authorized to deal with. While this arrangement did shift a greater amount of decision making to the regional level it was still a case of the General Conference administering downward rather than letting constituents join together in self-rule of their regions.

Next: Growth and Money

The Epic, Pt. 84

The Potomac Conference constituency meeting took place on September 26, 2010. Per Potomac Conference procedure, the nominating committee had met several weeks in advance of the actual constituency meeting and so presumably had already decided on the candidates it wished to present. This did not mean that the presentation occurred promptly. There were six agenda items ahead of the first report of the nominating committee, including two special music presentations. It also included the president’s report, which was full of glowing testimonies.

By the time the first nominating committee report was presented—just before the lunch break—the delegates had heads full of the wondrous works of Elder Miller and stomachs fully empty. It was a situation ideally built for the speedy reelection of Elder Miller, which was what the nominating committee recommended. But then someone (not from Takoma Park, for the record) moved that the name be referred back to the nominating committee.

In a situation like that the chair of the meeting, which during nominating committee reports was the Columbia Union President Dave Weigley, has a certain amount of latitude in how he proceeds. The whole point of making a referral back to the nominating committee under the Adventist system of elections is to allow the referring party to present evidence of the candidate’s unfitness to hold the office to which they are nominated in a private way, rather than airing dirty laundry about the candidate before all the delegates. Once the referring party has had their say the nominating committee decides whether the charges brought against the candidate warrant a change in the nomination. When a meeting chair receives a motion for referral he can choose to accept it without a vote, call for a vote on it to see whether the motion has support from more than just one (maybe unbalanced) person before accepting the referral, or require that the motion receive the support of a majority vote in order to be accepted.

Elder Weigley decided to require the support of a majority vote. While it was within accepted policy to proceed as he did, we find it contradictory to the whole concept of making a referral because if a majority of the delegates were already familiar with the reasons for the candidate’s unfitness there would be no point to the referral—that informed majority could just vote the name down directly. Then there’s the fact that since discussion isn’t accepted on nominations there is no mechanism for informing a majority about the reasons for unfitness from the floor. The bottom line is that Elder Weigley chose the course of action most likely to squash the referral and thereby ensure Elder Miller’s reelection.

The motion for referral failed. The name was then voted on. It passed.

Later in the meeting when the nominating committee recommended that Dr. Ray Pichette continue in office the same thing happened. A motion was made for referral, Elder Weigley required it to pass a majority vote, and the referral vote failed. Dr. Pichette was also reelected.

Beyond the disappointing election results there was some interesting data presented at the constituency meeting which sheds light on the state of the conference. To begin with, a list of the incumbent elected officers of the Potomac Conference and their lengths of service there (which was available in the delegate packets) shows an 83.3% turnover rate since Elder Miller’s arrival. The delegate materials also included an assertion that nine churches within the conference had undergone consultant assessments. It did not list the nine churches. We find this curious because it would seem that the conference would want to be presenting these wonderful success stories of their bold program—unless, of course, their stories weren’t actually successes. In fact, the conference has been directly asked about the names of these nine churches and refused to provide them. We know that Takoma Park was one of them, obviously; we have heard through the grapevine of some others, but we don’t have all nine identified. (Readers, if you have further information on this point we would love to hear from you either in the comments or by email.)

Another interesting point to note is that while Pastor DeSilva continues to dismiss Takoma Park’s falling income as just part of a larger, conference-wide trend resulting from the poor economy, the report from the Vice President for Finance claimed an average annual tithe increase of 3.8%. The financial report also included in a list of accomplishments the statement that, “Church and school treasurers are now required to present audit results to entity boards.” We won’t begin to guess where the breakdown in this accomplishment is occurring, but we have never seen an audit report presented to the Takoma Park church board.

Next: Constriction

Religious

Our Roots, Pt. 24

There were some who thought the 1893 General Conference Session would be an occasion where the organizational issues plaguing the Church would finally be addressed. Ellen White, who was then living with her son W. C. White in Australia, wrote a long letter about organization to be read at the Session. So far as we can tell the full letter has never been released to the public by the White Estate, but the portion of it which is available is included below. (Some will notice that a few of the paragraphs are familiar. Ellen White was in the habit of borrowing statements she had previously written where applicable to address whatever subject was at hand, and it appears that some of this letter was later incorporated into the article from 1905 which we featured in Our Roots, Pt. 2.)

“I learn that it is proposed by some of our brethren to do away with the organization of some, at least, of the branches of our work. No doubt what has led them to propose this step is that in some of our organizations the machinery has been made so complicated as really to hinder the work. This, however, is not an argument against organization, but against the perversion of it.

“It is nearly forty years since organization was introduced among us as a people. I was one of the number who had an experience in establishing it from the first. I know the difficulties that had to be met, the evils which it was designed to correct, and I have watched its influence in connection with the growth of the cause. At an early stage in the work, God gave us special light upon this point, and this light, together with the lessons that experience has taught us, should be carefully considered. . . .

“We had a hard struggle in establishing organization. Notwithstanding that the Lord gave testimony after testimony upon this point, the opposition was strong, and it had to be met again and again. But we knew that the Lord God of Israel was leading us, and guiding by His providence. We engaged in the work of organization, and marked prosperity attended this advance movement. As the development of the work called upon us to engage in new enterprises, we were prepared to enter upon them. The Lord directed our minds to the importance of educational work. We saw the need of schools that our children might receive instruction, free from the errors of false philosophy, that their training might be in harmony with the principles of the word of God. The need of health institutions had been urged upon us, both for the help and instruction of our own people and as a means of blessing and enlightenment of others. This enterprise also was carried forward. All this was missionary work of the highest order. Our work was not sustained by large gifts and legacies: for we have few wealthy men among us. What is the secret of our prosperity? We have moved under the order of the Captain of our salvation. God has blessed our united efforts. The truth has spread and flourished. Institutions have multiplied. The mustard seed has grown to a great tree. The system of organization has proved a grand success. Systematic benevolence was entered into according to the Bible plan. The body ‘has been complicated by that which every joint supplieth.’ As we have advanced, our system of organization has still proved effectual.

“In some parts of the work, it is true, the machinery has been made too complicated; especially has this been the case in the tract and missionary work; the multiplication of rules and regulations made is needlessly burdensome. An effort should be made to simplify the work, so as to avoid all needless labor and perplexity.

“The business of our Conference sessions has sometimes been burdened down with propositions and resolutions that were not at all essential, and that would never have been presented if the sons and daughters of God had been walking carefully and prayerfully before Him. The fewer rules and regulations that we can have, the better will be the effect in the end. When they are made, let them be carefully considered, and, if wise, let it be seen that they mean something, and are not to become a dead letter. Do not, however, encumber any branch of the work with unnecessary, burdensome restrictions and inventions of men. In this period of the world's history, with the vast work that is before us, we need to observe the greatest simplicity, and the work will be the stronger for its simplicity.

“Let none entertain the thought, however, that we can dispense with organization. It has cost us much study and many prayers for wisdom that we know God has answered, to erect this structure. It has been built up by His direction, through much sacrifice and conflict. Let none of our brethren be so deceived as to attempt to tear it down, for you will thus bring in a condition of things that you do not dream of. In the name of the Lord I declare to you that it is to stand, strengthened, established, and settled. At God's command, ‘Go forward,’ we advanced when the difficulties to be surmounted made the advance seem impossible. We know how much it has cost to work out God's plans in the past, which has made us as a people what we are. Then let every one be exceedingly careful not to unsettle minds in regard to those things that God has ordained for our prosperity and success in advancing his cause.

“The work is soon to close. The members of the church militant who have proved faithful will become the church triumphant. In reviewing our past history, having travelled over every step of advance to our present standing, I can say, Praise God! As I see what God has wrought, I am filled with astonishment and with confidence in Christ as Leader. We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and his teaching in our past history. We are now a strong people, if we will put our trust in the Lord; for we are handling the mighty truths of the word of God. We have everything to be thankful for. If we walk in the light as it shines upon us from the living oracles of God, we shall have large responsibilities, corresponding to the great light given us of God. We have many duties to perform, because we have been made the depositories of sacred truth to be given to the world in all its beauty and glory. We are debtors to God to use every advantage he has entrusted to us to beautify the truth of holiness of character, and to send the message of warning, and of comfort, of hope and love, to those who are in the darkness of error and sin.

"Thank God for what has already been done in providing for our youth facilities for religious and intellectual training. Many have been educated to act a part in the various branches of the work, not only in America but in foreign fields. The press has furnished literature that has spread far and wide the knowledge of the truth. Let all the gifts that like rivulets have swelled the stream of benevolence be recognized as a cause of thanksgiving to God.

"We have an army of youth today who can do much if they are properly directed and encouraged. We want our children to believe the truth. We want them to be blessed of God. We want them to act a part in well organized plans for helping other youth. Let all be so trained that they may rightly represent the truth, giving the reason of the hope that is within them, and honoring God in any branch of the work where they are qualified to labor.

“We are still free to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience. As the disciples of Christ it is our duty to diffuse light which we know that the world has not. Let the people of God be ‘rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate, laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.’” (Letter 32, 1892, To the Brethren of the General Conference, December 19, 1892)

A careful reading of this letter suggests that there were those who were advocating the complete elimination of certain auxiliaries as a way of simplifying the organization, and that Ellen White’s purpose in this letter was to convince them not to do this. Instead, she advised overall simplification of their processes without the loss of any specialty. This nuanced intention was lost on the Session delegates. They interpreted the letter as instruction to not in any way change the situation of the auxiliaries.

The delegate’s interpretation of Ellen White’s letter effectively squashed the broader and more adventuresome proposals for organizational improvement, but there was one minor organizational refinement that was approved at the 1893 Session. The district system of administrative oversight was expanded. Since 1889 North America had been divided into six administrative districts and the rest of the world had been considered district seven. At the 1893 General Conference Session the territory known as Australasia (which was comprised of Australia and the nearby Asian countries) became district seven and Europe became district eight.

Olsen, who was still General Conference President, was content with this small change in the organization. He believed that the district system would eventually lead to the district superintendents assuming a large portion of the administrative duties which were currently the responsibility of the General Conference President, thereby accomplishing decentralization. Others were less thrilled with this paltry improvement in the organizational system.

Next: Australasia

Our Roots, Pt. 23

As the 1890s progressed the auxiliary organizations came into conflict with each other. There were many ways in which their designated specialties overlapped and there was no final authority to which all of these independent entities answered that could step in to settle issues. The overall growth of the Church meant a growth in the size and complexity of these conflicts as well.

So the situation may be fully appreciated we will enlarge on a few of these overlapping jurisdictions. The Foreign Mission Board was tasked with matters pertaining to church workers in unorganized areas, but the Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association also sent workers into unorganized areas and didn’t feel a need to consult with the Foreign Mission Board about it. The General Conference executive committee and International Religious Liberty Association also figured they had the prerogative to send workers wherever they pleased. The Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association insisted on full control of distribution of health-related books and other materials, which put it at odds with the Tract Society and the Publishing Association. The Publishing Association didn’t care for the influence the General Conference wanted to exert regarding the materials they produced. The purpose of the General Conference Association was to deal with all legal matters such as holding property and making contracts, which put them in the middle of everyone else’s business. The list could go on, but the point is made.

This confusion was compounded by a lack of clarity about the roles of the conference-level chapters of each auxiliary. Not only did they have the same jurisdictional issues amongst themselves as the central organizations did, there was also confusion about what, if any, actions they could take without the explicit approval of the central organizations. This generally translated into the conference-level chapters being merely the puppets of the central organizations.

The bureaucratic situation got so bad that the ongoing Church growth during this period was in spite of, rather than because of, the administrative system. It became generally recognized that there was a problem, but there was no agreement on what to do about it. There were some who didn’t want to deal with it at all because they reasoned that issues of organization would be a “distraction” from mission-related issues. Others resisted because the only solution they could think of would be a consolidation along the South African Conference model and they were convinced that that was the very centralization that Ellen White was still speaking strongly against. The General Conference executive committee would have been the logical body to take control of the situation (and the auxiliaries), but the presidents of the auxiliaries were generally members of the executive committee and each strongly defended the autonomy of their own organization.

Next: Paltry Progress

Our Roots, Pt. 22

In 1891 a missionary named A. T. Robinson arrived in South Africa to take charge of the work there. The time was right for the work in that area to be given some formal organization. However, what Robinson had to deal with was not just the creation of a conference, but how to address the functions of the many auxiliaries. The organizational model from the US called for a separate local chapter of each auxiliary to be organized at the conference level and for each to have its own governing board. In a new territory such as South Africa this posed a problem because it would require the rather limited number of church workers to spend considerable amounts of time populating these boards rather than evangelizing. To resolve this issue Robinson proposed a different way of organizing the auxiliaries.

Robinson wanted to bring all of the auxiliaries under the control of the conference. Each auxiliary would have a single “secretary” to oversee the functions of that auxiliary within the conference. The auxiliaries’ secretaries would report to the conference executive committee. There is some evidence that variations on this idea had previously been suggested in different contexts, but this was the first time anyone had seriously tried to implement it. Robinson wrote to the General Conference President O. A. Olsen to get approval for the plan.

When Olsen received this request he wrote to W. C. White, who was then living in Australia, to get his opinion of the plan. The time it took for mail to travel in those days created some confusion about the nature of White’s response. Before receiving the letter about Robinson’s proposal White had written a letter to Olsen which spoke generally about the need to maintain the auxiliaries within the existing conferences. After receiving Olsen’s letter about Robinson’s proposal he wrote again. In this letter he expressed concern about some of the details of the constitution Robinson proposed for the new conference, but otherwise thought the idea for consolidating the auxiliaries made a lot of sense in Robinson’s situation. About two weeks later White wrote directly to Robinson with the same message.

In the meantime Olsen had received the earlier letter from White and assumed that it was meant to apply to Robinson’s proposal. This, combined with opinions from the Foreign Mission Board that Robinson’s proposal would constitute undesirable centralization, lead him to reply to Robinson on November 13, 1892 that he should not proceed with his proposed method of organizing the South African Conference. The message didn’t arrive in time. Whether he had gotten tired of waiting for a response or was sufficiently reassured by White’s approval or was motivated by some other reason, Robinson went ahead with organization according to his plan on December 4, 1892. Olsen’s letter of disapproval was still in the mail.

Since the deed was then done it was allowed to stand. Olsen was wary of the development but later acknowledged that things seemed to be running smoothly in the South African Conference. This successful experiment would later serve as a model for further innovations in Church organizational structure.

Next: Auxiliary Confusion