Book: Clarence Creager Crisler, Organization: Its Character, Purpose, Place, and Development in the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1938). HTML, PDF.
[p. 87]
Chapter 10: Local Churches
In the earlier years of the experience of Seventh-day Adventists, “church organization and church order were alike unknown, and sometimes spoken against; and when the number of believers increased, it was with the utmost caution that the simplest form of organization of a single church, was advanced and received.”—Conference Address on “Organization,” signed by nine ministers, and published in Review and Herald, June 11, 1861.
The brethren faced a real perplexity,—the problem of providing for the legal holding of church properties, and at the same time following the simple organization of the primitive Christian church. “We should not depart from the apostolic churches,” J. N. Andrews urged in his plea for carefulness in taking any advance step. (See Review and Herald, Oct. 9, 1860.)
During the council meeting held in the fall of 1860, when the legal organization of churches was urged as advisable, a few finally signified their willingness to take the advance step proposed. J. N. Andrews said:
“I hope I am not understood as opposing such organization of individual churches as would enable them to hold church buildings legally.”—Review and Herald, Oct. 16, 1860.
One of the ministers from Ohio, T. J. Butler, was fearful of possible criticism in the future. “So far as principle is concerned,” he declared, “we all want to take such a [p. 88] course as to free ourselves from criticism.” “That we never can do,” quickly responded Elder Loughborough. (See Idem.)
The Conference of April 26-29, 1861
Light on proper church order came to some of the ministering brethren during a conference held in Battle Creek, April 26-29, 1861. Of this occasion, Uriah Smith wrote:
“Solemnity characterized the exercises from the commencement to the close. Upon the preachers seemed to rest the burden of cultivating themselves, and inculcating upon others, a spirit of deeper devotion and more entire consecration. …
“At the close of the business session on the evening following first day, at nine o’clock, commenced the last of the feast in which was furnished the best of the wine. Meeting continued till half past eleven that evening, and the day following from 7 to 11 A.M., and from 2 to 5 P.M. Those who were laboring under feelings of spiritual destitution, discouragements, and trial, spoke freely of their cases; and heartily did the brethren take hold to afford them help by their exhortations and their prayers. God’s signal blessing rested down, and at times the house resounded with shouts of praise and thanksgiving. The efforts that were made for freedom, for a bursting of the fetters with which the enemy would fain bind God’s people, and for a consolidation of union between hearts which he had long been trying to estrange from each other, together with their results, were indeed encouraging.”—Review and Herald, April 30, 1861.
At this council meeting, the business sessions of which [p. 89] “were characterized by promptness of action, and the utmost unanimity of sentiment, no dissenting vote being offered on a single question,” Elder Loughborough urged “a more complete organization of the church.” “We had come to that point,” Elder Smith, the secretary, reported, “where the cause of God demanded organization, not that organization which constituted Babylon, but such as would ensure order in the church.” Elder White entreated his brethren in the ministry to take hold of this work. J. H. Waggoner, before coming to the meeting, had resolved to unite with his brethren in perfecting the organization of the church.
The discussion on this topic was followed by a unanimous vote “that the ministers that are assembled at this conference be requested to write out an address on the subject of church organization.” (See Idem.)
An Address on New Testament Order
This action was carried out in part by the publication, a few weeks later, of a signed “Conference Address,” entitled “Organization,” in which a general statement of the subject under consideration was made. The address was signed by J. H. Waggoner, Joseph Bates, James White, J. B. Frisbie, J. N. Loughborough, M. E. Cornell, E. W. Shortridge, Moses Hull, and John Byington. The publication of this carefully prepared statement had much to do with the shaping of sentiment in favor of organization, and a study of its paragraphs will throw considerable light on the later development of gospel order in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. In it the brethren gave a carefully written review of past experiences and methods and of the problems they were now facing, and urged the [p. 90] desirability of taking without further delay some steps leading toward deeper spirituality, better unity, and greater efficiency for service; and to this end they proposed “a more thorough and perfect organization of the Seventh-day Adventists.”—Review and Herald, June 11, 1861.
A decade before, there were only a few hundred believers, living chiefly in New England and New York. The ministering brethren had been able to visit these occasionally, and also to do much evangelistic work in unentered territory. But as the number of believers multiplied to three thousand or more, and as the territory to be covered became greatly enlarged, including all the Central States and extending into the Middle West, the lack of order and system began to bring very heavy burdens on the workers in the field. That which a dozen ministers had been able to do not many years before, when the believers were “few in number, very much scattered, and in no place assuming to take the name of a church,” could not longer be done by former methods of labor, even if the messengers should continue “untiring in their efforts to give aid, traveling far, holding meetings sometimes all night, enduring toils and trials sufficient to exhaust the energies of any class of men.”—Idem.
The brethren upon whom had rested the care of all the churches, reasoned that should an attempt be made to continue to give personal supervision to local church matters, they would “utterly fail for want of both time and strength.” Yet their experience had led them to a solemn conviction that the body of believers in the third angel’s message must either have such personal labor bestowed upon them by visiting ministers, “or some step must be taken—some means devised and adopted—to supersede [p. 91] the necessity of it. But this labor,” they added, “cannot now be bestowed on all the scattered ones, as we have shown; therefore we conclude that means must be adopted for the preservation of order, the correction of wrongs, and consequent growth in grace and spiritual mindedness.”—Idem.
The remedy proposed was (1) a more thorough organization of local churches for effective service and for spiritual growth, and “to preserve … order and purity;” (2) the proper organization of “State or district conferences,” which would be “a great benefit by supplying the churches in every part of the field with the means of coming together in their several States or districts for social and public worship, and for the building of each other up in the word of the Lord;” (3) the holding of “general conferences” so representative in character as to be “fully entitled to the name.”—Idem.
The brethren who wrote this memorial were desirous of giving their chief energies to the proclamation of the third angel’s message in unentered fields; and they pleaded this desire as one of the primary reasons for urging a further safeguarding of local church interests. A lessening of the “labor and care” of the gospel messengers “for the welfare of the scattered people of God,” they declared, could be attained only “by adopting such rules as shall secure more perfect order in the churches.”—Idem.
A twofold recommendation was made for the strengthening of local church organizations; namely, (1) that written records of all business transactions in the name of the church be kept for examination by visiting ministers and by others in authority; and (2) that careful record be kept of the various members of the churches. “It should [p. 92] be definitely known at all times,” they urged, “who are and who are not considered members, and then the welfare of all may be looked after, and the erring may be reclaimed by timely action, or the unworthy withdrawn from in a manner to save the cause from reproach.”
“This is especially necessary,” they pointed out, “to save the ministers and churches from being imposed upon by those who move from place to place. … Every person leaving a church by removal should obtain a letter certifying to his standing; and without this precaution our churches are open to ‘confusion and every evil work.’ ”—Idem.
“Our object in this [address] is to call your attention to the necessity of a more thorough organization, and invite your cooperation in the effort to effect it. We have seen with deep regret the distrust with which reforms of this kind are viewed, and trust it is for want of understanding the necessities of the case. We have examined it with carefulness and prayer, and hope and pray that you will examine it in the same manner, and believe that you will arrive at the same conclusion. … Our position and circumstances are such that any just and proper means of avoiding difficulty and trial in the churches are worthy of your most earnest consideration.”—Idem.
Further Delay and Uncertainty
Definite and decided as were the recommendations made in 1861, the brethren who outlined them, out of deference for the opinions of their brethren elsewhere, still refrained from going forward with the matter arbitrarily. A few weeks later James White wrote:
“The place of worship of the Seventh-day Adventists [p. 93] of Battle Creek is still the property of S. T. Belden. Organization has been postponed by this church until our ministers and people could come up unitedly to the work. There is no party feeling with those who feel the necessity of organization. They do not wish to move forward until all our ministers and people are prepared to go with them. How long shall we wait?”—Id., Aug. 27, 1861.
The foregoing lines were written during an Eastern trip. It had been the intention of Elder and Mrs. White to visit New York, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The situation they met among the churches in central New York led them to change their plans, and to return to Battle Creek after touching only a few points.
In an editorial in the Review Elder White referred to his experience on this trip as follows:
“We seem to be wading through the influence of a stupid uncertainty upon the subject of organization. … There is everywhere some one to hold back. They have no valid reasons for so doing, still they hold back. …
“A few years since we could report success and additions to the ranks at every appointment on our Eastern and Western tours. Now these conference meetings are scenes of wearing labor to hold together and strengthen what remains.”—Idem.
Principles Outlined Anew
In this crisis, as in many another during the establishment of gospel order among Seventh-day Adventists, clear counsel was received as to the steps that should be taken to bring about unity. This was published first in the Review and Herald bearing date of August 27, 1861, and [p. 94] later in Testimony for the Church, No. 7, under the title “Organization:”
“August 3, 1861, I was shown that some have feared that our churches would become Babylon, if they should organize; but those in central New York have been perfect Babylon, confusion [without organization]. And now unless the churches are so organized that they can carry out and enforce order, they have nothing to hope for in the future; they must scatter into fragments. … If ministers of God would unitedly take their position, and maintain it with decision, there would be a uniting influence among the flock of God. Separating bars would be broken to fragments. Hearts would flow together and unite like drops of water. Then there would be a power and strength in the ranks of Sabbathkeepers far exceeding anything we have yet witnessed. … The time for ministers to stand together, is when the battle goes hard.”—Testimonies for the Church, Vol. I, pp. 270-272.
Adoption of Resolutions
The time for action had arrived. At a general meeting held in Battle Creek, Michigan, October 4-6, 1861, soon after the return of Elder and Mrs. White from their Eastern tour, the brethren gave special study to the principles underlying the organization of believers into churches. According to the report of this council meeting, as published in the Review, “the first business presented was the organization of churches.” It was—
“Resolved, That we refer this subject to the ministers present, instructing them to hold a Bible class on it, and write an address to the brethren, to be published in the Review.”—Review and Herald, Oct. 8, 1861.
[p. 95]
This address appeared in the Review dated October 15, 1861, and dealt with “(1) the manner of organizing a church; (2) officers and their duties; (3) the reception of members; and (4) letters of commendation.”
During the meeting, it was further—
“Resolved, That this conference recommend the following church covenant: We, the undersigned, hereby associate ourselves together, as a church, taking the name, Seventh-day Adventists, covenanting to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ.”—Id., Oct. 8, 1861.
This action opened the way for the formation of Seventh-day Adventist churches throughout the ranks of believers; and during the year that followed, many churches were organized in various parts of the country. Some of the companies in the East, however, were very slow to organize themselves in church capacity, and several years passed by before gospel order was fully established in all parts of the field.
[p. 96]