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. 135]
Chapter 15: District and Union Conferences—1888-1901
The counsels regarding the distribution of the burdens of conference management, which were given through the Spirit of prophecy in the 70’s and 80’s to brethren in responsibility, received some consideration at the time of the Minneapolis General Conference in 1888. During that meeting it was proposed that the General Conference territory in the United States and Canada be broken up into several portions. Each portion was to comprise a few local conferences and missions, with an advisory committee to look after the various interests of the cause lying within the prescribed boundaries.
The plan proposed was somewhat similar to that which had been adopted by the brethren in Europe for the strengthening of their field work. The local conference organizations and the mission fields in Europe had all been united into one general organization, known as the European Council. This ecclesiastical body had recommendatory and supervisory powers, but was itself closely linked with and subject to the General Conference.
The practical workings of the European Council had brought great benefit to the cause in that part of the field. Some of the brethren of the General Conference Committee had had the privilege of laboring for a considerable length of time in Europe while the representatives of the various local conferences and missions there were meeting [p. 136] annually for counsel. These brethren, realizing the value of such a plan, urged that a similar arrangement be adopted for the conduct of the work in America. Thus the combined wisdom of many minds in close contact with local conditions and needs, would be brought to bear upon the problems peculiar to some particular portion of General Conference territory. Many of the burdens that had hitherto rested upon a few men at the head of the work, would be distributed to various parts of the fields and borne by responsible men in these different sections of General Conference territory.
Preliminary Steps
The proposal did not meet with general favor at the time, and other matters pressed in; so no action was taken. After the close of the session, the General Conference Committee, in a meeting held November 18, 1888, adopted as a temporary arrangement the division of the territory in the United States and Canada into four large districts. Over each of these one of the members of the General Conference Committee was asked to take general supervision as a “special counsel.” R. M. Kilgore was given the oversight of the work in the South; R. A. Underwood, in the East; E. W. Farnsworth, in the Central States and the Middle West; W. C. White, in Colorado and the Pacific Coast. (See General Conference Minutes, Nov. 18, 1888.)
In accordance with a recommendation passed by the General Conference Committee later on, the brethren in charge of these fields prepared “concise reports in writing of the work in their respective fields.” (See Id., July 14, 1889.) These earliest reports of district superintendents were presented before the General Conference in 1889. [p. 137] (See General Conference Bulletin, pp. 23-25, 32, for full account.)
Division of the Territory Into Districts
It was during the 1889 session of the General Conference, that the president, Elder Olsen, in his annual address, called attention to “the propriety of districting the territory covered by the General Conference in this country, and placing a district under the special charge of a member of the General Conference Committee; such member to have the special oversight of his district in the conducting of institutes, general meetings, camp meetings, and other work.”—Year Book, 1890, p. 148.
This recommendation was taken under advisement by the Committee on Judiciary, and reported upon favorably, whereupon the General Conference passed a resolution providing for the division of the territory in the United States and Canada into six districts,—the East, the South, the Central States, the Northwest, the Southwest, and the Pacific Coast. (See Daily Bulletin of the General Conference, 1889, p. 90.) These were to be known as “District No. 1,” “District No. 2,” and so on, and at the head of each was to stand, in the order named, A. T. Robinson, R. M. Kilgore, O. A. Olsen, E. W. Farnsworth, E. H. Gates, R. A. Underwood.
Duties of General Superintendents
The duties of the heads of these districts were not clearly defined until after the close of the conference of 1889, when O. A. Olsen, W. C. White, and R. A. Underwood were appointed by the General Conference Committee [p. 138] to consider this matter. (See General Conference Minutes, Dec. 28, 1889.) This subcommittee brought in as their report the following recommendations, which were adopted:
“1. That the member of the General Conference Committee having charge of a General Conference district, be called a general superintendent.
“2. That it be the duty of each general superintendent to attend the annual State conferences held in his district.
“3. That the general superintendent have the oversight of all ministerial institutes and annual conventions held in his district; that he attend these, as far as possible, and provide for the attendance of competent teachers, leaders, and counselors, at all these meetings.
“4. That it be the duty of the general superintendent to become acquainted with the officers of the State conferences, tract societies, and Sabbath school and health and temperance associations in his district, and ascertain the efficiency of their methods of labor; and to counsel, caution, and instruct them, as the state of their work may demand. Also to report to the corresponding secretary of the General Conference any irregularity or inefficiency that endangers the prosperity of the societies of which he has the oversight.
“5. That it be the duty of the general superintendent to have a special care for weak conferences and mission fields in his district, and for such portions of the territory as are being neglected; and to bring to the attention of the General Conference Committee, the condition and wants of such fields.”—Id., 1891, p. 56.*
[*This report was adopted January 2, 1890, during the eighth meeting of the General Conference Committee.]
[p. 139]
For five years the district superintendents limited their activities largely to the duties outlined in these recommendations.
Satisfactory Results
“The plan has worked well,” reported Elder Olsen in his address to the delegates assembled at the opening of the General Conference of 1891. “As far as we have learned,” he added, “the arrangement is very satisfactory to the State conferences, and should be continued.”—General Conference Bulletin, 1891, p. 4.
And it was continued. At the end of another biennial period, in an address at the opening of the 1893 General Conference, Elder Olsen was able to report:
“The division of the General Conference territory in this country into districts, and placing a superintendent over each, is proving of much advantage. The most serious difficulty met has been that several of the superintendents of districts, being presidents of local conferences, have been laden with the responsibilities of local work. The district superintendent should be free to give his whole attention to the work in his district. This point should be borne in mind in the General Conference and State conference appointments.”—Id., 1893, p. 278.
A Proposal to Form District Conferences
In this same address, Elder Olsen outlined clearly the value of perfecting the organization of the districts into conferences intermediate between the General Conference and the State conferences. “It will be important at this conference,” he urged, “to consider the question of further organization. This is made necessary in order to meet the [p. 140] demands of our enlarging work. We would recommend that this conference provide for district conferences, formed of local conferences, composing the General Conference districts in this country, and that the sessions of the said district conferences be held in the alternate years between the sessions of the General Conference.
“This same plan should also be extended to the work in other lands. Conferences in such fields could be grouped into districts, and granted their necessary prerogatives under the General Conference. These conferences might hold meetings alternately with the General Conference, as before stated, and there should be full delegations composing the districts, with representatives from the General Conference. Each district conference would be expected to consider and plan for the work in its own district, at its sessions, and also to provide, by the election of delegates, for representation at the General Conference.
“Another consideration which makes the organization of district conferences necessary, is the requirements of our financial work. Proper provision must be made for the legal holding of property set apart for the use of the cause of God, and the legal transaction of such business as may be connected with the cause in its various departments. The General Conference Association, which has met the requirements in this direction for a few years, will be unable to do so in the future. It has already nearly reached its limits as to the holding of real estate, and should not be made to carry more responsibilities in that and other directions. Organizations designed to serve the purpose of the General Conference Association, should be organized in the districts. These organizations would be amenable to the district conferences, and on account of the [p. 141] direct connection which these conferences sustain to the General Conference, the work of said legal organizations would be connected with the work as a whole.”—Id., p. 285.
Principles Emphasized Anew
In the councils of the brethren in attendance at the General Conference of 1893, much time was given to a consideration of the value of organization. Several communications on the subject from the pen of Mrs. E. G. White were read, including that which is reprinted in the introduction of this compilation. One of the manuscripts read was entitled, “Formality, Not Organization, an Evil.” (See Id., p. 21.)
In another, dated December 27, 1892, Mrs. White declared:
“As we near the final crisis, instead of feeling that there is less need of order and harmony of action, we should be more systematic than heretofore. All our work should be conducted according to well-defined plans. I am receiving light from the Lord that there should be wise generalship at this time more than at any former period of our history.”—Ellen G. White Letter 27a, 1892.
And in a message dated January 9, 1893, occurred the familiar statement:
“Our work is plainly laid down in the word of God. Christian is to be united to Christian, church to church, the human instrumentality cooperating with the divine, every agency to be subordinate to the Holy Spirit, and all to be combined in giving to the world the good tidings of the grace of God.”—General Conference Bulletin, 1893, p. 421.
[p. 142]
District Organization Abroad
Before the close of the meeting, definite action was taken looking toward the perfecting of district organization by the setting apart of the Australasian territory as District No. 7, and of the European field as District No. 8. The resolutions adopted read thus:
“Whereas, In view of the growth and extension of the work in Europe and other parts of the world,
“52. We recommend, That the arrangement of General Conference districts be extended also to those fields, and that the Australian and New Zealand Conferences be known as District No. 7, and Europe as District No. 8.
“53. We recommend, That the presidents of the conferences and the General Conference districts in connection with the General Conference Committee arrange for council meetings to be held the alternate year with the General Conference, and to be known as district conferences, at which time ministerial institutes can be held, and plans for the work in the districts, and such other questions considered and arranged as pertain to the development and advancement of the work within the limits of the district.”—Id., p. 478.
Biennial Sessions
Further action was taken by the executive committee after the close of the conference session as follows:
“That district conferences be held in each General Conference district, as far as practicable, in the years alternating with the biennial sessions of the General Conference; that the representation of such conferences consist of State conference committees, the presidents and [p. 143] secretaries of State tract societies and Sabbath school associations, and the State canvassing agent of each State or Territory, in the district; that the district superintendent be the presiding officer of the district conference, a secretary being selected at the first meeting of each session; that the object of the district conferences be to counsel concerning the interests of the cause in the territory of the conference, and for planning for the extension of the work in all the various lines, no action being taken on matters which have not been considered in principle, at least, by the General Conference; and that devotional exercises and meetings for Bible instruction be held each day of the session.”—Year Book, 1894, p. 85.
The recommendations concerning the formation of new territory into district conferences and the holding of biennial sessions alternating with the General Conference, were carried into effect.
The First District Conference Meeting
In the report concerning the holding of the first district meeting where representatives of all divisions of the work from each State conference in the district were present, Elder J. N. Loughborough, the superintendent of the district, wrote:
“The first district conference for District No. 3 was held, according to appointment, in Battle Creek, October 10-15. The delegation to the conference consisted of the conference committees, the presidents and secretaries of the several State tract societies, the State Sabbath school associations, and the State canvassing agents of the four States comprised in the district. The superintendents of the six General Conference districts of the United States, [p. 144] and the educational secretary of the denomination, were present. As this was the first conference of the kind, they were desirous to attend, deeming that it might aid in planning for similar conferences in their respective districts. …
“This gathering being of a different character from any previously held, we had considerable anxiety as to its success. … Although much prayerful thought had been bestowed for the success of the meeting, not one had any definite program for the conference. All, however, expressed their confidence that the Lord would guide in our study of the present situation, and in the planning of ways and means for our people to work, which plans could be carried to our people in the State and church institutes that were immediately to follow the conference. …
“Some of the superintendents who had questioned whether the people in their respective districts would deem it advisable to hold district conferences, expressed themselves that such conferences were indispensable in every district, especially as a means of instructing and preparing laborers for the work of holding State and church institutes.”—Review and Herald, Oct. 24, 1893.
In the official minutes of this conference, F. D. Starr, the secretary, reports:
“The first two days of the meeting were devoted to a council of the presidents of the four conferences of District No. 3, comprising the States of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. In this council, the best plans for conducting the exercises of the remaining days of the conference were considered; and a program was, after much thought and prayer, and counsel with Professor W. W. Prescott and other [p. 145] members of the General Conference Committee, finally made out. It was thought that the time should largely be spent in considering the present features and developments of the message, and receiving any advance light the Lord might have for us.”—Idem.
The list of delegates from local conference organizations to this first district conference meeting included the names of G. A. Irwin, I. H. Evans, Allen Moon, and others who in later years have borne heavy burdens in connection with the general work.
While an organization was formed at this meeting which was afterward known as District Conference No. 3, yet in reality this organization was not a union conference as the term is understood today. Very little had been attempted in the way of granting powers now vested in union conference organizations, and the district conferences held during the winter of 1893-94 were devoted largely to Bible work. The first district conference “was immediately followed,” writes Elder Loughborough, “by State institutes in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. These State institutes held from seven to ten days each, and afforded opportunity for all the laborers in each to receive instruction in the lines considered in the district conference.
“From the State institutes a number of laborers went out to the churches, to carry on the same work among them, especially infusing in the minds of all, the importance of the words, ‘Arise, shine,’ by living out the truth, and working for the relief of the poor and needy around them, not only spiritually but physically. Great good was accomplished as a result of this line of meetings and labor.”—Year Book, 1894, p. 55.
[p. 146]
Other District Meetings in 1893-94
The organization of all the other districts in the United States followed along the same lines as those adopted by District No. 3. At the conference held in District No. 4 (the territory now included in the Northern and Central Union Conferences), instruction was given “on the points of our faith, health and temperance, methods of work, the relations that the different organizations should sustain to each other, and other important subjects.”—Review and Herald, Nov. 14, 1893. “The question of how the work should be carried on in new fields, as well as church work, received special attention.”—Id., Jan. 23, 1894.
The Australasian Union Conference
While the districts in America were carrying out the recommendations adopted during the 1893 session of the General Conference, a similar work was going on in the newly formed District No. 7, comprising all General Conference territory in Australasia. The brethren in that field were unable to attend the first district meeting in the United States and therefore could not use for a model the district conferences in America; and so they attempted to carry out the General Conference recommendations according to their conception of what a district conference should be.
They had the advantage of the presence of the General Conference president, O. A. Olsen, who united with his brethren in giving much thought to the organization of the work in that distant part of General Conference territory. Among the others present were W. C. White, the district superintendent; A. G. Daniells, president of the Australian Conference; M. C. Israel, president of the New [p. 147] Zealand Conference; J. O. Corliss and W. A. Colcord, just arrived from America; Robert Hare, George B. Starr, W. L. H. Baker, Mrs. E. G. White.
“In closing the session, Elder Olsen remarked that it had afforded him great pleasure to be present and participate in the deliberations of the meeting. He believed that all could see that the Australasian Union Conference had a most important work to do in this part of the world.”—The Bible Echo, Feb. 26, 1894.
In his report of the meeting to the readers of the Review, Elder Olsen wrote:
“We feel assured that these district conferences will be of great service to the work in general, especially in these far-distant fields.”—Review and Herald, March 27, 1894.
In the report prepared for insertion in the Year Book, W. C. White, the first president of the Australasian Union Conference, gave an outline of the objects and aims of the conference, as follows:
“The object of this conference is to unify and extend the work of the third angel’s message, under the general direction of the General Conference, in the Australasian field. … In the organization of the union conference, these local conferences will be brought together for counsel and instruction in the work, and for mutual encouragement, and development of the important interests carried forward by the denomination, in that field.
“The officers of the conference are: A president, a vice-president, a secretary, a treasurer, and an executive committee. The president of the conference will always be the superintendent of the district, appointed by the General Conference.”—Year Book, 1894, p. 61.
[p. 148]
The development of the Australasian Union Conference into a working body, with a strong and representative executive committee, and fully organized departments representing the publishing, educational, medical, and religious liberty interests, was outlined to the delegates assembled at the 1901 General Conference by A. G. Daniells, at that time the president of the union; and by W. C. White, the former president. (See General Conference Bulletin, 1901, pp. 89-93.) It was largely upon the model of this union conference, as developed through the years from 1894 to 1901, that the district conferences in America and elsewhere were reorganized into union conferences.
A Proposal to Strengthen District Organizations
During a council meeting held with the delegates assembled at the General Conference of 1895, O. A. Olsen, the president, urged “the necessity of increased efficiency in the matter of carrying forward the work of the denomination.” To this end he recommended that the organization of the district conference be strengthened.
“Some of these divisions,” declared Elder Olsen, “now contain more members, more laborers, and more institutions than our General Conference contained a few years ago, and hence the importance of properly caring for and nourishing all these interests. As our work increases in magnitude and our enterprises enlarge, it will be very natural for us to pay close attention to some things and neglect others. This should not be.
“The plan of organization which was introduced into our work at the beginning was of God, and should be preserved in every particular.”
The plan that suggested itself to his mind was “that [p. 149] the presidents of the conferences composing the districts, together with the superintendents, should form a sort of district conference committee or council, and that many matters pertaining to the work in the district, and to the mutual interest of the various conferences, be considered by this council, such as the interchange of laborers, the appointment of camp meetings, and many other subjects of mutual interest. This is becoming more desirable and necessary now that the General Conference is held but once in two years. We could not think of going back to the old plan of holding these large meetings annually. But there is need of brethren often counseling together with reference to the work for our mutual benefit, and for the best interest of the cause.
“During 1893-94, conferences were held in all but one of the districts, and in every case were productive of much good.
“For twenty-five years much has been said in the Testimonies upon the point of dividing the responsibilities and avoiding giving the work a one-man mold. The idea that a few men should compose the large body of all our committees and boards is not as the Lord would have it. More men should share these burdens and by experience gain a fitting up for greater responsibilities.”
The speaker believed that “we should make more of our district conferences. Some lines of work,” he said, “must always be left to the General Conference, for here every interest of the cause unites, but much of the detail work that has heretofore been done by our General Conference can now be taken up by the district conferences to better advantage. While the dividing up of these responsibilities will be a salutary movement, we must be [p. 150] careful to avoid confusion, and we must exercise great care to observe the plan which the Lord has given for His people.
“After the sanctuary had been prepared and its materials brought together and everything was in shape, there was still one thing lacking, and that was the vital thing. It would have been but an empty shell without the presence of God. So it is with our work. No arrangement could possibly make up for the lack of God’s presence. No remodeling of the sanctuary, moving of furniture, or readjustment of the curtains would bring back the presence of God. And yet we sometimes make the mistake that when we are conscious of the lack of God’s presence, we think the matter may be remedied by remodeling and reshaping the work; whereas the vital trouble is that God is not with us, and no readjustment will do us any good unless we humble our hearts and obtain God’s presence and His blessing with us.
“It would seem that the perfecting of the organization of these districts would be to follow on in the same lines which have been marked out by the testimonies of the Spirit of God in the beginning of our work. Its effect will be to unify and strengthen the work, and to bring all parts into harmonious action. By forming the councils which have already been mentioned, composed of the presidents of the conferences, with the district superintendent as chairman, the responsibility will be divided, and there will be less liability to mistake. The word has often come to us that we should counsel together; and ‘in the multitude of counselors there is safety.’ Prov. 11:14. By thus bringing the united judgment and experience of these brethren together, the work will become more firmly [p. 151] established and will not bear the mold of any individual.”—General Conference Bulletin, 1895, pp. 185, 186.
In his address at the opening of the conference of 1895, Elder Olsen made the following recommendations concerning district conferences:
“The question of the authority of these conferences and the business to be transacted in them, should be further defined, especially for the benefit of those more remote from the center of the work.
“Many responsibilities are placed on these district superintendents, and their position and work should meet with proper recognition. It seems to us that arrangements could be made for the presidents of the local conferences to form a committee, with the superintendent of the district as chairman. This committee could be called together for counsel and action by the superintendent, whenever there were important questions involving the interests of the work in the district. On such occasions many questions could be considered which would otherwise have to go before the general body. To avoid confusion, it would be well for the president of the General Conference to attend these meetings as far as possible. In cases where this is not consistent, the decisions of these district committees ought to be presented to him for consideration. In this way a larger number would engage in consultation, the unity of the work would be preserved, and every interest of the cause properly guarded.”—Id., pp. 151, 152.
The General Conference of 1897
In a statement concerning “the plan of organization of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination,” prepared and [p. 152] published by the General Conference Committee in May, 1906, the principal facts concerning the distribution of responsibilities attempted during the General Conference of 1897, are clearly outlined thus:
“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 manifest that the scope of the organization should be enlarged.
“Just before the General Conference held at College View, Nebraska, 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 Foreign Mission Board, president of the General Conference Association, president of the International Tract Society, and president of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association; 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 [p. 153] 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 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 ——— and ——— be associated with him on the committee.
“The headquarters of the Mission Board were removed from Battle Creek, Michigan, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a corporation formed under the laws of the State of New York.
European Union Conference
“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 [p. 154] 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.
The General Conference of 1899
“In February, 1899, the General Conference convened at South Lancaster, Massachusetts, 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. …
“The South Lancaster Conference endorsed the policy of the administration, and expressed its confidence in the officers, by reelecting all of them, with possibly one exception. …
“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 [p. 155] 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 cooperation that might be expected. … The unfriendly and criticizing attitude of ——— 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.”—A Statement, published by the General Conference Committee, May, 1906.
Thus matters stood when the brethren met once more in General Conference, in 1901.
[p. 156]