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.

Our Roots, Pt.48

There have not been any dramatic changes in Adventist church structure since the early part of the twentieth century. There have been changes of growth—more congregations, conferences, union conferences, and divisions have been added—but the way these bodies relate to each other has remained relatively constant. There has been some tendency for the divisions to function with greater independence from the General Conference, but the nature of the essential ties that define their relationships is unchanged.

Only one new type of administrative entity has been added since the divisions were revised in 1918; that entity is the Union of Churches. A union of churches is like a conference in that it is composed of congregations, and like a union conference in that it reports directly to a division. It is used only in special circumstances where impediments exist to the traditional conference and union conference model, rather than throughout the system of governance, and its functions and personnel are essentially the same as a conference. Therefore, it doesn’t represent any significant alteration of the governance model.

One other minor change that has occurred in the last few decades is that the interval between General Conference Sessions has again been lengthened, so that they now meet once every five years.

There are some who argue that the present system of governance has more layers than are needed in the present age of rapid communication. The suggestion has been made that the union conference level be eliminated and that in its place there should simply be a larger number of divisions with somewhat smaller territories than they presently possess, but still larger than the territory of a union conference. It is an interesting idea, particularly in light of the historical fact that one of the major justifications for the creation of both union conferences and divisions was the need for faster communication with those empowered to make decisions, which in those days meant having empowered decision makers physically closer to the location of the issue. On the other hand, another major justification for these levels of governance was the need to delegate as much decision making as possible, because it was simply too much for the General Conference to handle alone. So while the communication issues have been mitigated, or even eliminated, by the advance of technology, the need to delegate because of the enormity of the task has only been made more acute by the growth of the church.

We don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other about the proposal to eliminate union conferences. But whether it is adopted or not we do think there is a deeper issue that needs to be addressed in order for either strategy (eliminating union conferences or leaving them as is) to succeed in improving the effectiveness of church governance. There must be a clarification of the purpose of each level of the governance structure.

During the course of our appeal to the Potomac Conference it was asserted (in the context of whether or not we could appeal a decision of the Potomac Conference to the Columbia Union) that conferences manage churches, unions manage conferences, divisions manage unions, and the General Conference manages divisions. This is a perfect example of how not to define the purpose of each entity. If all each level does is look over the shoulder of the level below it, there is no reason why we shouldn’t start eliminating levels. Then there is the incredible ambiguity of what is entailed in “manage.” There simply is no purpose in this statement.

Here is how we would define the purpose of the various levels of the Adventist governance system. The purpose of the General Conference should be to define global identity. This would include being the final word on doctrine and policy, seeing that all areas of the world have the appropriate human and financial resources to carry on evangelism effectively, and making general plans for evangelism and discipleship activities. The purpose of the divisions should be to take the global identity defined by the General Conference and make it applicable to the cultural context of their territory. The purpose of the union conferences should be to bring unity among the diverse populations in their territory and mobilize them for united efforts in evangelism that the smaller units would not be able to muster alone. The purpose of the conferences should be to train local members for service and facilitate those service activities as needed. The local congregation should be the “boots on the ground,” the people who go out and do what the rest of the organization has been planning and preparing the way for.

End of Our Roots.

Our Roots, Pt. 47

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GENERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next: The Current Worldwide Situation

Our Roots, Pt. 46

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

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

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

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

Next: The Church Manual

Where Are We Going?

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

From pages 30-36:

1. Outstanding Adventist leaders have transparent motives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Outstanding Adventist leaders can handle change.

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

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

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

7. Outstanding Adventist leaders are faithful.

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

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

From pages 74 and 75:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Roots, Pt.45

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next: Divisions Revisited

Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 34

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

"The Spirit of Independence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Unity in Diversity

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

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

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

"The General Conference

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

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

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

Our Roots, Pt. 44

Toward the end of 1907 Ellen White was again dealing with that recurring organizational problem—the exercise of kingly power. This problem had not existed in significant proportions since the reorganization of 1901. (Ellen White had, from time to time during the previous six years, reproved Daniells for specific instances of kingly power. But it never became a major problem in the General Conference under Daniells because he consistently accepted the reproof and made prompt correction of the situation.) The kingly power Ellen White now had to address was at a local conference rather than the General Conference. The size of the sphere in which it was manifested made no difference—the exercise of kingly power must be stopped wherever it made an appearance.

The kingly power now in evidence was being exercised by the California Conference president. The conference was due to have its constituency meeting in late 1907. Ellen White didn’t attend, but she did send W. C. White with some very pointed messages from her to be read at the meetings, “This message is spoken to our churches in every place. In the false experience that has been coming in, a decided influence is at work to exalt human agencies, and to lead some to depend on human judgment, and to follow the control of human minds. This influence is diverting the mind from God, and God forbid that any such experience should deepen and grow in our ranks as Seventh-day Adventists. Our petitions are to reach higher than erring man—to God” (Manuscript 73, 1907).

The messages got even more pointed, even calling for the president’s immediate replacement, “I am deeply convicted on some points. I must speak in regard to the position that Elder Reaser is occupying. I know, from the light God has given me, that if this is allowed to continue, God will be greatly dishonored.

“God calls His servants to seek light and understanding and spiritual strength from One who is infinite in wisdom; they are to put their dependence upon One who is able to help in every emergency.

“The conditions that have existed in southern California this past year are not such as God can approve. To those who have clear discernment it is not hard to see the results of placing men in positions where they are mind and judgment for their brethren.

“Those who accept such a work and authority show that they have not a true and wise understanding of the Scriptures. If these men were close students of the Word of God, they would see that by adopting such a course, they are leading men and women to depend on human wisdom instead of seeking it from God” (Letter 246, 1907).

When the constituency meeting reelected this president anyway Ellen White began five and a half months of intense correspondence with him to help him see the errors of his ways and correct them. This effort eventually bore the fruit of a changed attitude.

Ellen White faced this sort of situation again in January of 1910. This time it was the president of the Pacific Union Conference that was exercising kingly power. And this time Ellen White attended the constituency meeting in person. One morning she delivered an address to the delegates about the need to walk humbly with God.

“Those who are standing in responsible positions should understand clearly that they are not rulers over their fellow-workers. Men in responsibility should be Christlike in deportment. They need to be leaders in every reformatory movement for the purification of the church. They are to reveal that angels of God are constantly round about them, and that they are laboring under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Carefully are they to avoid everything that savors of a spirit of selfishness and self-esteem; for in meekness and humility of heart they are to be ensamples to the flock.

“…In all their dealings with God’s heritage, they are to avoid ruling arbitrarily. We are thankful that such manifestations of arbitrary dealings one with another as have been seen in years past, are not seen so often now.” (Pacific Union Recorder, April 14, 1910)

That afternoon members of the nominating committee visited Ellen White to ask for advice. She advised them that a new president was needed. That same afternoon she wrote a letter to the current president explaining to him why he should not continue in office. The next morning she read this letter to the delegates of the meeting and followed it up with some remarks elaborating on the necessity for the change.

The thrust of these remarks was that it was God calling for a change and that it was her responsibility to deliver that message clearly and forcefully, “Brethren, God is in earnest with us. He does not desire Brother [H. W.] Cottrell to take a position that will lead both him and many others to make wrong decisions. Some may think it cruel to speak thus plainly; but it would be very cruel to allow our brother to cherish his natural tendency to think that when he takes a position he has to hold to this position without changing his view” (Manuscript 25, 1910).

This time the constituency meeting took her advice and elected a new president.

Next: Division Conferences

Our Roots, Pt. 43

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next: Rebuking Kingly Power

Our Roots, Pt. 42

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Roots, Pt. 41

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next: Order and Organization in the Apostolic Church

Still Going Down

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

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

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

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

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

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