Book: General Conference Committee, A Statement Refuting Charges Made by A. T. Jones Against the Spirit of Prophecy and the Plan of Organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination (Washington, DC: General Conference Committee, 1906). HTML, Scan.
Contents: Refutes charges made by A. T. Jones after he had united with J. H. Kellogg in undermining the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Chapter 2: Some History Regarding Our Organization
Some of the history given by Elder Jones in the leaflet we are reviewing tells of his official connection with the General Conference Committee from the time of the College View Conference in 1897, until he resigned from the Committee just prior to the 1901 Conference. It also tells of conditions that prevailed, and of his experience in dealing with these conditions. There are others who are very familiar with those times and experiences, and who are also able to give “some history.”
The organization adopted by the pioneers of this message for its government and management, we believe to have been in harmony with the mind of God. As the work grew and spread to other countries, it soon became [p. 13] manifest that the scope of the organization should be enlarged.
Just before the General Conference held at College View, Neb., in 1897, communications came from Sister White that changes should be made. There should be a further division of the field, and a division of responsibilities. Prior to this time, the president of the General Conference was president of the Foreign Mission Board, president of the General Conference Association, president of the International Tract Society, and president of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Assn.; besides being a member of a number of other committees and boards.
Acting in harmony with this advice, the Conference voted “that the presidency of the General Conference Association and the presidency of the Mission Board and the presidency of the General Conference work in North America, be placed upon three different men, instead of upon one man as heretofore.”
It also recommended “that the General Conference territory be divided into three divisions; namely, the Australasian Union Conference, the European Union Conference, and the General Conference territory in North America, and that a European Union Conference be organized to hold biennial sessions alternating with the General Conference.”
It was further recommended “that a Mission Board of nine members be elected, with headquarters and incorporation in some Atlantic State.” The General Conference Committee was increased from nine to thirteen members, being composed of the president of the General Conference, the presidents of Union Conferences, the superintendents of the six General Conference Districts of the United States, the president of the Mission Board, and three other persons; and it was recommended that what was formerly known as General Conference districts in North America, be organized into Union Conferences.
Elder G. A. Irwin was elected president of the General [p. 14] Conference at that meeting, and in harmony with the statement of the Testimonies that the president of the General Conference should have a voice in selecting those who should be associated with him as counselors, he requested that Elders A. T. Jones and R. A. Underwood be associated with him on the Committee.
The headquarters of the Mission Board were removed from Battle Creek, Mich., to Philadelphia, Pa., and a corporation formed under the laws of the State of New York.
In July, 1898, at a meeting held at Hamburg, Germany, a European Union Conference was organized, with Elder O. A. Olsen as president. In the winter of 1897-98, general meetings were held in the six districts of the United States, but no formal organizations were effected. The carrying out of the recommendations of the General Conference, and consequent division of territory and separation of funds that had been formerly controlled under one management, consumed time and entailed many perplexities that were unforeseen and unprovided for by the Conference when in session.
In February, 1899, the General Conference convened at South Lancaster, Mass., when formal reports made by the officers, of the work of the biennial term, were presented and adopted without dissent. No objection was raised to the form of organization, or to the official acts of the men having the work in charge.
During the session of the General Conference, however, Testimonies were read showing that wrong principles of dealing had permeated the entire cause, and before God could send prosperity these things must be corrected. God’s Spirit accompanied the reading of these Testimonies, and a spirit of confession came upon the people, the members of the General Conference Committee taking the lead. These wrong principles had their origin with, and were promulgated by, men who occupied prominent positions in the General Conference prior to the Conference [p. 15] of 1897, who boldly stated that they did not believe the Testimonies, and took advantage of their official position to diffuse “the malaria of unbelief throughout the ranks nigh and afar off.” Their refusal to heed the counsel of the Spirit of God, and their being honored by being retained in their positions and allowed to carry forward the General Conference business according to worldly plans and policies, had more to do with the reform called for in 1897, than did usurpation or abuse of authority upon the part of the president, or other members of the Committee.
The South Lancaster Conference endorsed the policy of the administration, and expressed its confidence in the officers, by re-electing all of them, with possibly one exception. Elder A. T. Jones made a motion in open conference, to have the term of the Conference extended to four years, and supported it with an address of considerable length, pointing out the benefits that, in his judgment, would come to the cause by such a change. From this it appears that he must have been fairly well pleased with both the form of organization and the general policy of administration.
During this Conference, a number of people were sent abroad, means were raised to assist Australia, and other advance moves made. The heavy indebtedness of the General Conference and the failure of the Christiania Publishing House during this term, brought perplexity that consumed much of the time and energy of the officers. A message from Sister White, calling upon ministers and workers to reduce their salaries for a time, and thus take the lead in a spirit of sacrifice which the Lord would be pleased to have all the people make, was proclaimed to every Conference in the United States.
Efforts were also being made to right the wrongs pointed out by the Testimonies. The efforts of the Committee in this direction did not in every instance meet with that hearty co-operation that might be expected. This [p. 16] caused Elder Jones to lose sight of the dignity of his position to the extent of allowing, as the Testimony says, “an evil spirit to cast drops of gall into his words,” and, forgetting the warning given him of God, “he pressed his brethren into hard places.” When mildly reproved by the president of the General Conference for his course, and counseled to make the matter right with the brethren by apology, he resigned from the Committee. The indifferent and unsympathetic attitude he manifested from this time on, and the unfriendly and criticizing attitude of the president of the International Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association toward the administration, made the work of the Committee very hard. For these and other reasons, the work of further organizing and perfecting the Union Conferences was not carried forward as it should and otherwise might have been.
At the opening of the General Conference of 1901, held at Battle Creek, Mich., a message was borne by Sister White, that the time had again come when the scope of our organization should be further enlarged and broadened, and other men brought into the work. It spoke also of false principles which were still in operation in the General Conference administration, and in other organizations and institutions.
From a careful reading of this, it is not difficult to understand what is meant by the false principles and the reorganization referred to. The narrow, circumscribed methods which had prevailed were to be broken up; the selfish principles which were controlling the various institutions and lines of work were to be abandoned; a reorganization was to be effected which would more fully take in the full scope of the work to be accomplished throughout the world; and the spirit of self-sacrifice for the truth’s sake that characterized the pioneers in this message was to be revived. The wrong principles which permeated the organization were the evils aimed at, rather than the form of organization itself.
[p. 17]
The “change” which was here called for was made. The most of the men bearing responsibilities in the General Conference were relieved, and others were chosen to take their places. The Committee was enlarged to twenty-five members, the principal countries and different branches of work being represented on it.
The Constitution was amended to conform to the increased number of the Committee. Instead of leaving the selection of the officers of the General Conference to the General Conference, the Constitution, as amended, placed the power of selecting the officers in the hands of the General Conference Committee, by providing that the Committee should “organize itself” and choose a chairman in the place of having a president elected by the Conference. According to this arrangement, the chairman could be changed at the will and caprice of the Committee at any time it was in session. This arrangement, instead of being in the line of reorganization, was a step toward disorganization; and two years later it was followed by a proposition that there should be no permanent chairman of the Committee, and that each of the Departments of the Conference should be granted co-ordinate executive authority. The result of such an arrangement could not be otherwise than disastrous. In the end it would destroy all united effort and harmonious action. Confusion and disorganization would be the inevitable result. This was a defective and impracticable arrangement, which was never called for nor endorsed by the Testimonies.
Doing away with a president would no more remedy the evils, complained of and reproved, than would the changing of men from place to place, which the following Testimony, dated August 28, 1899, says would not remedy the difficulty: “It is not changing men from the heart of the work to different places that will remedy the difficulties. The education of years has been molding and fashioning the work of false theories. False theories, [p. 18] human policy, selfishness, pride, self-esteem, and corrupting principles have been brought in to sacred things.”
From a perusal of the following quotations taken from a Testimony given in 1899, entitled, “Words of Counsel Regarding the Management of the Work of God,” it will be clearly seen that it was not the abolishing of the office of president of the General Conference that was called for, but the choosing of “able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness,” to stand by his side as counselors, and to assist as burden-bearers:—
“The president of the General Conference has altogether too many burdens for one man to carry. For years this has been presented to me. My husband fell under the heavy drafts made upon him. Elder Butler was counseled by the Lord to share his burdens with men who could counsel with him. They were to be given a portion of the load. But this counsel was unheeded.”
“Elder Olsen was advised to share his burdens with men who could help him. The work of the General Conference should never have rested on one man. At first one man could carry it, but as believers multiplied, the man must suffer as well as the work, which needed careful thought and the utmost firmness, in order that right principles might be maintained.”
From these quotations, as well as those that follow, any unbiased mind can see that a return, in the Conference of 1903, to the principles of “God’s wise arrangement” for the government of his people was not a backward step, or a “usurpation of position, power, and authority,” but the sensible thing to do in order to save the cause from sudden changes and erratic movements, which would be made possible at any time by a combination of selfish, ambitious, and designing men.
“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, [p. 19] 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.”—“Gospel Workers,” pages 159, 160.
“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, page 647.