ADVENTIST HERITAGE SERIES ORGANIZING = FORM SOD GEORGE R. KNIGHT(ORGANIZING FOR MISSION AND GROWTH The Development of Adventist Church Structure GEORGE R. KNIGHT REVIEW AND HERALD® PUBLISHING ASSOCIATIONCopyright © 2006 by Review and Herald® Publishing Association Alll rights reserved Previously printed in 2001 under the title Organizing to Beat the Devil. The author assumes full responsibility for the accuracy of all facts and quotations as cited in this book. This book was Edited by Gerald Wheeler Cover design by Trent Truman Electronic makeup by Shirley M. Bolivar Typeset: Goudy 11/14 PRINTED IN U.S.A. 10 09 08 07 06 5432 RGH Cataloging Service Knight, George R Organizing for mission and growth: The development of Adventist Church. structure. 1. Seventh-day Adventists—Government. |. Title. 286.732 ISBN 10: 0-8280-1980-0 ISBN 13: 978-0-8280-1980-4Other books by George R. Knight (selected) The Fat Lady and the Kingdom I Used to Be Perfect (Andrews University Press) Joseph Bates: The Real Founder of Seventh-day Adventism Millennial Fever and the End of the World The Pharisee’s Guide to Perfect Holiness A User-friendly Guide to the 1888 Message Walking With Jesus on the Mount of Blessing Walking With Paul Through the Book of Romans Books in the Adventist Heritage series A Brief History of Seventh-day Adventists A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs Organizing for Mission and Growth: The Development of Adventist Church Structure Books in the Ellen White series Books in the Devotional Commentary series Ellen White's World Exploring Mark Meeting Ellen White Exploring Galations and Ephesians Reading Ellen White Exploring Hebrews Walking With Ellen White A study guide for each of the books in the Devotional Commentary series is avaiable on www.adventistbookcenter.com. Forthcoming Exploring volumes Exploring Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon Exploring the Letters of John and Jude To order, call 1-800-765-6955 or visit us at www.reviewandherald.com for information on other Review and Herald® products. ON THE COVER 1. 2000 General Conference session in Toronto; 2. Early meeting of local Black church leaders; 3. James White; 4. George I. Butler; 5. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Silver Spring, Maryland; 6, A. G, Daniells; 7. William H. Green; 8. Charles Bradford12 15 28 48 67 103 Contents A Word to the Reader List of Abbreviations Chapter 1: Organization Is the Enemy Gospel Liberty Versus Organization Church Organization as “Babylon”: The Millerite Experience Post-Disappointment Resistance to Organization Chapter 2: Redefining Babylon (1844-1859) The “Gathering Time” and Connexionist Forms of Organization Problems in the Camp and the Call for “Gospel Order” Ongoing Discussion Amid Growing Tensions Time for Action and the Redefinition of Babylon Chapter 3: Organizing for Mission and Growth (1860-1863) Legally Holding Church Property and Choosing a Name, 1860 Forming Local Conferences, 1861 Establishing the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1862-1863 Perspectives on Organization Chapter 4: Tensions Within a Growing System (1864-1900) The Extent of the Authority of the General Conference Denominational Expansion and Organizational Experimentation Reinventing Babylon: An Alternative Model of Church Organization Chapter 5: Reorganizing for Mission and Growth (1901-1909) Moving Toward Disaster Restructuring the Church, 1901 A Developing Power Struggle, 1901-1903 Climactic Showdown, 1903 Reactions: Congregationalism Versus Centralization, 1903-1909 Perspectives on Reorganization132 167 182 186 Chapter 6: Refining the System (1910- ) The Development of Divisions Attempts at Consolidation and Term Limitation The Move Toward Regional Conferences Organizational Issues From the 1960s Through the 1990s Resurrecting Babylon: Another Look at Congregationalism Struggling Beneath the Burden: Too Much of a Good Thing Chapter 7: Organization Is the Answer Organizational Identity Crisis Factors to Consider in Restructuring Toward a Modest Proposal Postscript IndexA Word to the Reader his book is the third in a series on Adventist heritage. The first, A Brief History of Seventh-day Adventists (1999), traces the general development of the church from its beginning and provides the context for the more spe- cialized volumes in the series. The second, A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs (2000), exam- ines the historical emergence of the denomination’s theology. The present volume outlines the evolution of Seventh-day Ad- ventism’s organizational structure. That evolution took many twists and turns that the move- ment’s founders could not have predicted. Beginning in oppo- sition to formal organization in the 1840s, the Sabbatarian movement found itself forced toward organization in the 1850s in order to protect itself from impostors and to more adequately advance its mission in the frustrating face of an end that just wouldn’t come. From one perspective, the history of Seventh-day Ad- ventist Church organization has been rhythmic, with the first part of the rhythm being a felt need, the second a restructur- 7Organizing for Mission and Growth ing, and the third a testing and refining of the new structural pattern. Historically the denomination has gone through two full cycles and has entered what appears to be a third. The first cycle witnessed agitation for change in the 1850s, church or- ganization between 1860 and 1863, and refinements between 1863 and 1900. The second cycle began with calls for change in the late 1880s, reorganization between 1901 and 1903, and refinements between 1903 and the beginning of the twenty- first century. The 1980s saw the beginning of sustained agita- tion in what appears to be the start of a third cycle. The real question underlying the so-called “third cycle” is whether the denomination is still flexible enough to change, or whether the onset of structural rigor mortis will win out. In many ways the issue underlying that question is one of identity. That is, will Adventism in the twenty-first century gain its identity from its structures (and institutions) or from its mission? Major re- structuring in Adventism’s past has consistently revolved around being more efficiently equipped for mission. That was a major force behind the organization movement in 1861/1863 and the central motivation for reorganization in 1901/1903. If Advent- ism is to be consistent with its past, any future reorganization will have to focus on more effectively coordinating worldwide mis- sion in such a way that it spends less money on support structures, thus freeing up more funds and personnel for “frontline” endeav- ors. Of course, Adventism may choose to depart from its missio- logical/eschatological heritage and settle in to becoming just another rather pedestrian denomination. In harmony with the purpose of the Adventist Heritage Series, | have attempted to keep the treatment of the topics as brief as possible. That brevity forced me to stick to the main lines of development and to avoid extended discussions of even those topics. Thus I have written a history in bold strokes rather than fine ones. The advantage to such an approach is 8A Word to the Reader that it makes the main lines of development stand out clearly. The disadvantage is that it tends to gloss over some of the finer points and nuances of the topics treated. The brevity goal has also demanded that I utilize intext referencing rather than full citations. The citations, however, are adequate for those with a desire to research a topic in more depth. As in other areas of the church’s history, many Adventists probably haven’t thought much about how the denomina- tion’s organization came to be. Some undoubtedly believe that it has always been the way it is now. And among those who do know something of the historical development, many probably hold that the system has received its final refine- ments and now represents the very best way of doing things. Some may even be laboring under the misunderstanding that the present system is “inspired.” Change has been a part of every aspect of Adventist his- tory. This book is the story of that change in the field of church structure. Adventist history demonstrates that the denomina- tion has always been dynamic. Healthy, living things are al- ways developing and changing to perform their mission and function better. In this world the only things that aren’t capa- ble of healthy change are the dead and dying. Organizing for Mission and Growth: The Development of Adventist Church Structure is the first attempt to provide a comprehensive survey of the history of Seventh-day Adventist organization. Its most significant predecessors are Andrew C. Mustard’s James White and SDA Organization: Historical Development, 1844-1881 (1987) and Barry David Oliver’s SDA Organizational Structure: Past, Present, and Future (1989). Those published doctoral studies focused on the 1861/1863 and 1901/1903 structural developments and their significance. Also of special importance in the field of the his- tory of Adventist organization is the work of Bert Haloviak, 9Organizing for Mission and Growth General Conference archivist. Haloviak’s compilations of pri- mary documents on organization, his several occasional papers on the subject, and his expert assistance to researchers on the topic leave all of us in his debt. Other significant work in the area of Adventist organiza- tion and its development include J. N. Loughborough’s The Church: Its Organization, Order and Discipline (1906); C. C. Crisler’s Organization: Its Character, Purpose, Place, and Devel- opment in the Seventh-day Adventist Church (1938); Oliver Montgomery's Principles of Church Organization and Administration (1942); Gilbert A. Jorgensen’s “Investigation of the Administrative Reorganization of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists as Planned and Carried Out in the General Conferences of 1901 and 1903” (M.A. thesis, 1949); Carl D. Anderson’s “History and Evolution of Seventh-day Adventist Church Organization” (Ph.D. diss., 1960); and Walter Raymond Beach and Bert Beverly Beach’s Pattern for Progress: The Role and Function of Church Organization (1985). My own Fat Lady and the Kingdom: Adventist Mission Confronts the Challenges of Institutionalism and Secularization (1995) and several published papers since that date explore the organiza- tional challenges facing the church as it moves into the twenty-first century. Other possible books projected in the Adventist Heritage Series are a historical study of the evolution of the Adventist mission program, the development of Adventist lifestyle, and the unfolding of Adventist programs in such areas as educa- tion, health, and publishing. The next volume in the series will probably be titled Becoming Peculiar: Studies in the Development of Seventh-day Adventist Lifestyle. The Adventist Heritage Series is closely related to my se- ries on Ellen White: Meeting Ellen White: A Fresh Look at Her Life, Writings, and Major Themes (1996); Reading Ellen White: 10A Word to the Reader How to Understand and Apply Her Writings (1997); Ellen White’s World: A Fascinating Look at the Times in Which She Lived (1998); and Walking With Ellen White: The Human Interest Story (2000). It is my intention that the two series will provide both Adventists and those outside of the Adventist commu- nity with an overview of what Seventh-day Adventism “is all about.” Each treatment attempts to be brief but accurate. While I have written each volume with an Adventist reader- ship in mind, they also seek to present a solid introduction of their respective topics to the larger community. I would like to express my special appreciation to Bert Haloviak, the late Andrew Mustard, and Barry Oliver for their foundational research in the area; to Paul Evans for his work in collecting documents; to Tim Poirier of the Ellen G. White Estate, Jim Ford of the Adventist Heritage Center at Andrews University, and Bert Haloviak of the General Conference Archives for helping me locate primary sources; to Bonnie Beres for deciphering my handwritten manuscript and render- ing it into type; to Raoul Dederen, Jerry Moon, and Barry Oliver for reading and offering suggestions for improvement on the entire manuscript, and to Gregory Allen for doing the same for part of it; to Gerald Wheeler and Jeannette R. Johnson for guiding the manuscript through the publication process; and to the administration of Andrews University for providing financial support and time for research and writing. I trust that Organizing for Mission and Growth will be a help to its readers as they seek to gain a better understand- ing of the development and importance of Seventh-day Adventist Church organization. George R. Knight Andrews University Berrien Springs, Michigan 11List of Abbreviations Adventist Heritage Arthur G. Daniells Andrew G. Mustard Advent Herald Advent Harbinger and Bible Advocate Adventist Review American Sentinel of Religious Liberty Alonzo T. Jones A. T. Robinson Barry David Oliver Ellen G. White (6 vols., Arthur L. White) Christian Herald European Conference Bulletin European Division of the General Conference Committee minutes Ellen G. White Early Writings (E. G. White) Francis M. Wilcox George A. Irwin General Conference Actions of the Autumn Council of the General Conference Committee General Conference Daily Bulletin General Conference Committee minutes General Conference Officers Council minutes General Conference Quarterly Bulletin George I. Butler Gospel Workers (E. G. White) John Harvey Kellogg John N. Loughborough J. S. Washburn James White Louis R. Conradi Life Sketches (E. G. White) Midnight Cry 12Sten 1903 sw T ™ VT WAS WC wcw WWP Manuscript Morning Watch Mary Kelsey White Neal C. Wilson O. A. Olsen Review and Herald Robert H. Pierson Seventh-day Adventist SDA Organizational Structure (B. D. Oliver) Spiritual Gifts (4 vols., E. G. White) Selected Messages (3 vols., E.G. White) S. N. Haskell Signs of the Times Unpublished stenographic record of 1903 General Conference session The Southern Work (E. G. White) Testimonies for the Church (9 vols., E. G. White) Testimonies to Ministers (E. G. White) Voice of Truth William A. Spicer World's Crisis W.C. White W. W. Prescott 13Dedicated to Werner and Nancy Vyhmeister in the year of their retirement. Dean of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary and fellow editor of Andrews University Seminary Studies, respectively; both are valued friends and respected colleagues.CHAPTER 1 Organization Is the Enemy ing a herd of cats. A contemporary could have argued the same thing about the members of the Christian Connexion. One of the movement’s leading ministers wrote in the early 1830s that the Connexion had arisen simultaneously in several parts of the United States in the early 1800s “not so much to es- tablish any peculiar and distinctive doctrines, as to assert, for indi- viduals and churches, more liberty and independence in relation to matters of faith and practice, to shake off the authority of human creeds and the shackles of prescribed modes and forms, to make the Bible their only guide, claiming for every man the right to be his own expositor of it, to judge, for himself, what are its doctrines and requirements, and in practice, to follow more strictly the sim- plicity of the apostles and primitive Christians.” The movement opposed any “infringement of Christian liberty” (J. N. Brown, Ency. of Religious Knowledge, 1836 ed., 362; italics supplied). I has been said that there is nothing more difficult than guid- Gospel Liberty Versus Organization One of the historians of the movement in 1873 summarized 15Organizing for Mission and Growth the fierce independence of the Connexionists in the following manner: “When asked ‘of what sect they were?’ the reply was, ‘None.’ ‘What denomination will you join” ‘None.’ ‘What party name will you take?’ ‘None.’ ‘What will you do?’ ‘We will continue as we have begun—we will be Christians. Christ is our leader, the Bible is our only creed, and we will serve God free from the trammels of sectarianism’” (N. Summerbell, History of the Christian Church, 1873 ed., 519). For the earliest Christian Connexionists organization was the devil. In spite of their radical independence, the Connexionists did grant the need for structure at the local church level, but they considered “each church” or congregation “an indepen- dent body, possessing exclusive authority to regulate and gov- ern its own affairs.” By the 1830s the Connexionists had even formed state conferences that met once a year. Those state conferences, however, had no permanent officers. In addition, they had “no authority or control over the independence of the [local] churches.” For a time they had even experimented with a “United States General Christian Conference” but by 1833 the idea had “been given up” even though it had had no au- thority over either the state conferences or the local congrega- tions (Brown, Ency., 363). While it is impossible to determine how widespread the practice was, some of the “Christian” groups refused to print the minutes of their meetings. Wilbur E. MacClenny reports that “sometimes when a General Meeting was held the last thing done was to read and approve the minutes of the session, and then burn them, so they would not have any precedent for the next General Meeting” (Life of Rev. James O’Kelley, 150). The “cement” that held the Christian Connexion move- ment together appears to have been its periodicals rather than its loose and powerless conference associations. It is fitting that the movement entitled its first periodical Herald of Gospel 16Organization Is the Enemy Liberty. By the 1840s that religious newspaper had transformed into the Christian Herald, which had the responsibility of pro- viding official notices of conferences and records for those meetings. The Herald also sought “to spread among the churches correct opinions, . . . to diffuse a spirit of concord, and produce a more effective union” (M. T. Morrill, A History of the Christian Denomination, 1912, 141; CH, Oct. 1843). Interestingly enough, it would be the Millerite movement of the 1840s that would spur the Connexionists toward a tighter organization. In particular, the Millerite call for Ad- ventists to come out of Babylon that began in the summer of 1843 presented the Christian Connexion with a crisis of the first order. The Herald felt obliged to publish a five-part exposé of Millerism between March 28 and April 25, 1844. Four months before, one of the editors had authored a piece entitled “When Shall We Be Fully Organized?” His primary concern was to protect the church from ministers not recognized by the Connexion (CH, Dec. 7, 1843). Finally, September 1844 wit- nessed a cry for a more structured organization. The “liberal, perhaps I may say loose policy of many of the churches,” penned the Herald’s editor, “has left them open to the inroads of bigoted schismatics. Let us learn from this to act the conser- vative as well as the aggressive part” (CH, Sept. 5, 1844). Reflecting on the crisis of the 1840s, a historian of the Connexionist movement reports that “some of the leading ministers, and the editors of the periodicals, exposed the fal- lacy of Miller’s reasoning; but they did not succeed in heading off a considerable stampede among their brethren. . . . In an in- credibly short time many ministers among the Christians were swept off their feet by Miller’s views concerning prophecy, and began to preach his and their own vagaries. During the forties this propaganda continued unabated, with the result that the Christians lost a good many ministers, who, in their getting 17Organizing for Mission and Growth ‘out of Babylon,’ took church after church with them” (Mor- rill, History, 175). Among the “considerable stampede” were Joshua V. Himes, who had been secretary of the denomination’s General Conference session in 1833, and Joseph Marsh, the editor of the movement’s second most important periodical—the Christian Palladium. But more important for the story of this book than those leading ministers were the defections of a young minister by the name of James White and Joseph Bates, an influential layman. White and Bates would be two of the three founders of Seventh-day Adventism. They would bring into the new movement the lessons on organization that they had learned in the Christian Connexion. Church Organization as “Babylon”: The Millerite Experience Unlike the Connexionists, most Millerite Adventists were not antiorganizational in their attitudes during the early years of their movement. On the other hand, they had no desire to form their own organization. To the contrary, they sought to stay in the various denominations while they witnessed to their Advent faith and waited for Christ’s coming. The fact that the Millerites did not have a separate de- nominational organization, however, did not mean that they lacked structure. To the contrary, Joshua V. Himes welded them into an impressive missionary movement. His methods reflect his Connexionist background. His first line of action was the creation of a battery of periodicals and other publica- tions that not only held the movement together through the publishing of news and biblical arguments for the Advent, but also circulated the resolutions passed by the various general meetings of Millerite Adventists. Himes’s second contribution to the spread and stability of 18Organization Is the Enemy the movement involved the holding of regular general confer- ence meetings. We should not confuse such general confer- ences, however, with a permanent denominational structure. Rather, in Connexionist fashion they were periodic meetings of like-minded believers that passed resolutions for the believ- ers at large to consider. Thus as with the Christian Connexion, periodicals and general meetings provided the basic structure of the Millerite movement. The first Millerite general conference in October 1840 made it quite explicit that the movement's leaders desired to work within the framework of the existing churches. “We are not,” reads the conference report, “of those who sow discord among brethren, who withdraw from the fellowship of the churches.” Again, “we have no purpose to distract the churches with any new inventions, or to get ourselves a name by starting another sect among the followers of the Lamb.” Rather, they merely desired to “revive and restore . . . the an- cient landmarks” within their churches (Report of the General Conference, Oct. 14, 15, 1840, 22, 20). But in the very action of organizing a conference and start- ing a paper, the Advent believers had already begun an inde- pendent existence, even though they remained in their churches. The second session of the general conference would take a giant step forward toward the crisis that would eventu- ally lead to Millerite separation from existing denominations. That conference urged the believers to agitate the question of the Advent in their churches, pressure their ministers on the topic, and form special Bible classes for the study of the Ad- vent (ST, Aug. 2, 1841, 70). The emphasis on the Advent in the face of a rapidly ap- proaching fulfillment of a time prophecy all but guaranteed eventual separation for many Millerites. If they would have re- mained quietly inside their denominations, they could have 19Organizing for Mission and Growth stayed in them, but such silence was diametrically opposed to the very essence of the Millerite sense of responsibility. It was one thing to preach Miller’s 1843 message when it was some years off. But it was quite another thing when the time approached. A message that seemed harmless enough in the late 1830s threatened to disrupt the churches as the pre- dicted year of the end of the world loomed on the horizon. As the predicted time came close, neutrality in the churches be- came an impossibility: one had to either accept Millerism or reject it. The firm Millerite belief that God’s demands took prece- dence over those of the church community heightened the pending crisis in various congregations and denominations. Thus the Adventists believed themselves to be duty bound to sound their message of warning even in churches that did not want to hear it. By the late summer of 1842 resistance to Millerite Ad- ventism took at least three forms. First, an increasingly larger number of congregations forbade the Millerites from holding services in their buildings as the time of the end approached. Second, many churches no longer permitted Advent believers to speak of their beliefs in their own congregations. That meant that such members either had to go against the rulings of their churches or to stop attending altogether because of the increasing pressure. Large numbers of those who refused to be silent on the nearness of their Advent hope endured excom- munication. Third, pastors who had accepted Millerism and insisted on preaching their beliefs increasingly suffered expul- sion from their pulpits. Millerite responses lined up along two avenues. The first and more moderate of those two was a gradual separation that led to an autonomous Millerite identity. May 1842 saw the or- ganization of the Second Advent Association of New York— 20Organization Is the Enemy the first of many. While not churches, the associations did col- lect funds and elect officers. They also rented halls for their Sunday-afternoon meetings. Early on Millerites did not see the Association as a replacement for church attendance, but as a supplement. The movement encouraged believers to attend both their regular church and the Association's afternoon meeting. While not perceived as churches, many local associ- ations would evolve into churches after Christ did not come in October 1844. Another move in the direction of Adventist separation in- volved the building of Millerite tabernacles. The first of those tabernacles was completed in Boston in May 1843. It was one of many as Adventist congregations increasingly found them- selves forced to find new places to meet. Thus between the summer of 1842 and that of 1844, the Advent believers had gradually positioned themselves to have all the attributes of a denomination, including the ordaining of ministers. But even then they had no desire to form a new re- ligious body. Why should they? Jesus would come shortly. After that event no need for denominations would exist. Asa result, in May 1844 Josiah Litch could write: “No provi- sion has been made for the establishment of permanent institu- tions, among Adventists. . . . So far as there is anything which may be called an organization, [it] is of the most simple, voluntary and primitive form. ... We neither expect nor desire any other organization, until we reach the New Jerusalem, and organize under the King of kings. Here, we are pilgrims and strangers, with no abiding place” (Advent Shield, May 1844, 90, 91). The second and more radical Millerite response to the movement’s conflict with the churches was the “Babylon has fallen” message. In July 1843 Charles Fitch published what be- came one of the most famous and influential Millerite sermons. Based on Revelation 14:8 and 18:1-5, it was titled “‘Come Out 21Organizing for Mission and Growth of Her My People.’” In essence, those apocalyptic passages deal with both the fall of Babylon and the consequent need of God's people to flee from the corrupt system it represented. Fitch identified Babylon with any church—Roman Catholic or Protestant—that “opposed . . . the PERSONAL REIGN of Jesus Christ over this world on David’s throne.” All such churches were “ANTICHRIST.” Fitch then appealed: “If you are a Christian, come out of Babylon! If you intend to be found a Christian when Christ appears, come out of Babylon, and come out Now! . . . Dare to believe the Bible. . . . Come out of Babylon or perish” (“Come Out of Her, My People,” 9, 19, 24). Fitch’s call found a widespread response among the Mil- lerites, even though Miller himself never did accept it. Earlier in the chapter we saw the havoc it wrought in the ranks of the Christian Connexion. The conflict and persecution resulting from the rejection of the Advent message certainly led many believers to conclude that the churches were indeed acting the part of Babylon—the Old Testament oppressor of God’s peo- ple. One Millerite preacher who felt especially impressed to proclaim the message to leave other churches was George Storrs. Storrs wrote that Babylon “is the old mother and all her children [the Protestant denominations]; who are known by the family likeness, a domineering, lordly spirit; a spirit to sup- press a free search after truth, and a free expression of our con- viction of what is truth” (MC, Feb. 15, 1844, 237, 238). Individuals needed to abandon the denominations because “we have no right to let any man, or body of men, thus lord it over us. And to remain in such an organized body . . . is to re- main in Babylon.” To Storrs the history of organized religion (both Catholic and Protestant) was one of bigotry and perse- cution. He argued against visible, organized churches and opted for God’s great invisible church that “the Lord orga- 22Organization Is the Enemy nizes” on the basis of the “bonds of love.” In the face of perse- cution caused by a sincere belief in the soon coming of Jesus, Storrs concluded that “no church can be organized by man’s invention but what it becomes Babylon the moment it is orga- nized” (ibid.). While not all Millerites accepted Storrs’s extreme conclu- sions, his message, along with the believers’ painful experi- ences at the hands of organized churches, left an indelible im- pression on the great bulk of the believers. It was so strong that all Millerite groups found it next to impossible to organize to any significant extent after the Great Disappointment of October 23, 1844. Post-Disappointment Resistance to Organization Chaos reigned in post-disappointment Adventism—espe- cially among that sector of the movement that believed that Christ had come spiritually into the believers’ hearts on Octo- ber 22. Fanaticism of several varieties ran rampant among the so-called “spiritualizers.” In order to keep the Advent cause from ending up in total ruin, Himes summoned an organiza- tional conference at Albany, New York, beginning on April 29, 1845. The stated purpose of the conference was not to debate controversial doctrines but (1) “to strengthen one another in the faith of the Advent at the door,” (2) “to consult on the best mode of unitedly carrying forth our work, in comforting, and preparing the Advent congregations among us for the speedy coming of the Lord,” and (3) “to unite our efforts, for the con- version and salvation of sinners” (MW, Mar. 20, 1845, 96). In short, the Albany Conference sought to bring order to the ranks of a movement decimated by the post-disappoint- ment fanaticism of the spiritualizers. William Miller stated the aim nicely when he wrote that the Albany Conference “was convened to deliberate respecting, and if possible to extricate ourselves 23Organizing for Mission and Growth from the anarchy and confusion of the BABYLON in which we had so un- expectedly found ourselves” (AH, June 4, 1845, 129; italics supplied). Here, we should note, Miller used the word “Babylon” in its second meaning. It not only meant “oppression,” as pointed out by Storrs, but it could also mean “confusion.” Both defini- tions will surface again, as we shall see in the next chapter, in the struggle to organize the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Albany Conference adopted a 10-point statement of “Important Truths,” ordained two men to the ministry, and set forth a congregational approach to church organization. “Order,” read the statement on organization, “is heaven’s first law. . . . The New Testament rules for the government of the church, we regard as binding on the whole brotherhood of Christ. No circumstances can justify us in departing from the usages established by Christ and his Apostles. “We regard any congregation of believers who habitually as- semble for the worship of God, and the due observance of the gospel ordinances, as a church of Christ. As such, it is an inde- pendent body, accountable only to the great Head of the Church.” The statement went on to talk about “principles of associa- tion” by which the various congregations had communion with each other (MW, May 8, 1845, 150, 151; italics supplied). Not everyone was happy with the Albany principles. Joseph Marsh especially objected to the name “Adventists” and to the statement of beliefs, something that he held amounted to a creed (VT, May 21, 1845, 61, 62). Miller's response to Marsh highlights both the need for order and the importance of a statement of shared belief. “It must be evident,” he penned, “that unless we come out of the BABYLON into which we have been thrust, God will not bless us. The question then comes home to each one of our hearts, Shall we continue in the anarchy in which we have been, or shall we take gospel measures to restore gospel order. . . . It must be evident 24Organization Is the Enemy to all, that without union we can do nothing; and if there are no ‘important truths’ in which we are united, all can see that there can be no union among us” (MW, June 12, 1845, 191, 192; italics supplied). Thus by the summer of 1845 the Albany Adventists had united on a congregational platform that was essentially the same form of church organization as that held by the Con- nexionists and Baptists. It consisted of independent congrega- tions in loose association with each other. The 1850s would witness both dissensions in the Albany ranks and further attempts at organization. It is significant, however, that none of the struggling divisions of the Albany sector of Millerism managed to organize into a denomination before 1858. The Albany Adventists generally continued to exist in an atmosphere that reflected a fear that any structure beyond the congregational level might be a step toward the op- pressive aspect of Babylon. Eventually, however, four denominations would emerge from the nondenominational Albany Association. The first was the American Evangelical Adventist Conference, organized be- tween May and November 1858 to disseminate “original” Adventism as defined in 1845 at Albany. The second, the Advent Christian Association, formed in July 1860, although the strong antidenominational feelings among many led it to be called an association rather than a church. While the Advent Christians may have been antidenominational in mind, they found themselves forced into what was essentially a denomina- tion by the need for “a more efficient system of action, whereby the cause of truth may be advanced” as well as by the problems associated with keeping ministers in the field and supporting them in their work (WC, July 4, 1860, 71; Aug. 1, 1860, 86). The third organized religious body arising from the Albany Adventists was the quasidenominational Life and Advent Union. 25Organizing for Mission and Growth Born on August 30, 1863, it had, surprisingly, George Storrs as its president. The Life and Advent Union’s separate existence be- came permanent by an action of the Advent Christians in 1864 that denied Union adherents membership in the Advent Christian Association. A fourth sect related to Albany Adventism was the Age- to-Come Adventists, who taught that the Jews would return to Israel and that individuals would have a second chance to be saved during the millennium or “Age to Come.” The Age to Comers found it next to impossible to organize. There were, however, several abortive attempts during the 1850s. One leader concluded that “you might as well talk of organization with a herd of bisons or the union of a rope of sand.” The group reflected extreme individualism. It did not even want organi- zation at the congregational level. Every person was to be his or her supreme authority (AHBA, Jan. 14, 1854, 234). The Age-to-Come Adventists would not achieve significant na- tional organization until 1921. Of these four groups, only two have survived until the pres- ent, and they are numerically insignificant. Clyde E. Hewitt, an Advent Christian historian, bemoaned in 1990 the fact that his denomination was not only “small in numbers” but “small in outlook, in dreams, in visions. Smallness breeds smallness.” He attributed the weakness of his movement to the fact that it had never significantly organized above the congregational level. “The source of all power is right where it was in 1860 when we were bom—with the congregation. If all our local congregations, i.e., churches, were enlightened with a vision of what they could do for Christ and His kingdom through united action, we might be able to make the system work and be today a growing and not a dying de- nomination.” It is more than significant that Hewitt entitled the last section of his three-volume history of the Advent Christian movement “Should a Denomination Be Told It’s Dying?” 26Organization Is the Enemy (Devotion and Development, 357, 373, 367; italics supplied). Of all the post-disappointment Adventist groups, only one would develop a significant organization above the congrega- tional level. That group is the Seventh-day Adventist Church. But it did not come easily. After all, they carried the to-orga- nize-is-Babylon baggage of the other Millerites, some of them had suffered excommunication, and two of their three leaders had a Connexionist heritage. As a result, they would, like the Albany groups, labor throughout the 1850s toward an efficient organization. Their struggle, which would climax between 1861 and 1863, will be the story of the next two chapters. (For more on Millerite separatism and organization and the Albany denominations, see G. R. Knight, Millennial Fever and the End of the World: A Study of Millerite Adventism, especially 67-92, 141-158, and 245-293.) 27Cc HAPTER 2 Redefining Babylon (1844-1859) e noted in the first chapter that the Millerite expe- \ K / rience had left many Adventists with a sour taste in their mouths regarding organization. It was espe- cially true of those who had accepted Fitch’s call to leave spir- itual Babylon and then Storrs’s extension of that call to the idea that even the first step toward formal organization would be re-creating Babylon. Those who would eventually become Seventh-day Adventists belonged to that sector of Adventism. The Babylon concepts not only affected the early Sab- batarians, but some of them had been excommunicated by their previous denominations for the sole reason that they re- fused to remain silent about their belief in the soon-coming of Jesus. The Methodist Episcopal Church in Portland, Maine, for example, in September 1843 disfellowshipped the family of Ellen Harmon after a formal church trial (LS 43-53). That ex- pulsion personally affected young Ellen, since it soured her twin sister, Lizzie, against religion for the rest of her life. Ellen had witnessed firsthand the unjustness of a highly centralized denomination that in the state of Maine had systematically 28Redefining Babylon (1844-1859) purged both laypeople and ministers (including her favorite pastor—Levi Stockman) who would not renounce their Mil- lerite beliefs. Thus all three of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism had reasons to fear organized religion: James White and Joseph Bates from their Connexionist heritage and both those men plus Ellen White from the injustices they had witnessed and ex- perienced in 1843 and 1844. And, if that wasn’t enough, they also belonged to that sector of post-disappointment Adventism that believed that the door of probation had closed and that their mission to the world at large had been completed in 1844. Because of their belief they felt no desire to organize for reasons of evangelism or mission. After all, it would be just a short in- terval before Jesus returned. It had been the open door Ad- ventists who, believing they still had a mission to the world, had organized at Albany in 1845. Shut door Adventists of all varieties had objected to the Albany resolutions as a denial of their Advent faith. The shut door believers saw absolutely no reason to organize. But that would slowly alter. The “Gathering Time” and Connexionist Forms of Organization The first stimulus to change was the felt need by the Sabbatarian leaders to share the theological insights they had gained between 1845 and 1847 with other shut door Adventists. The initial effort along that line would be a collection of articles by Bates and the two Whites published in May 1847 as A Word to the “Little Flock.” The next year, however, would see their sharing become much more systematic. By 1848, as I demonstrated in A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs, the Sabbatarian leadership had a fairly well-developed theology that integrated their beliefs in the Second Advent, the seventh-day 29Organizing for Mission and Growth Sabbath, Christ’s two-phase ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, and the nonimmortality of the human soul into the apocalyptic framework of Revelation 1 1:19-14:20. They especially felt them- selves to be the people of the third angel of Revelation 14:9-12. As a result, they had come to believe that they had a mes- sage to share with other ex-Millerites. We must remember that at this early date they felt no need to share their understand- ing of the Bible with the larger world since they had not yet worked through their erroneous idea that probation had al- ready closed. But by 1848 they had no doubt as to their re- sponsibility to other ex-Millerites who were still perplexed about their 1844 experience. They viewed their rather limited mission in terms of what they labeled the scattering and gathering times. The scattering time had begun in late October 1844 with the splintering of the Millerite movement. As noted above, the months and years following the disappointment were frustrating as the dis- appointed believers searched for some semblance of hope and meaning in their Advent experience. But by 1848 the Whites and Bates were absolutely con- vinced that they had the answer for the scattered believers. James White put it nicely in November 1849: “The scattering time we have had; it is in the past, and now the time for the saints to be gathered into the unity of the faith, and be sealed by one holy, uniting truth has come. Yes, Brother, it has come. It is true that the work moves slowly, but it moves sure, and it gathers strength at every step. . .. Our past Advent experience, and present position and future work is marked out in Rev. 14 Chap. as plain as the prophetic pencil could write it. Thank God that we see it. . . . I believe that the Sabbath truth is yet to ring through the land, as the Advent never has. . . . Jesus is coming to gather the poor outcasts home, HOME, HOME” (JW to Bro. Bowles, Nov. 8, 1849). 30Redefining Babylon (1844-1859) Sabbatarian outreach during the gathering time took two forms. One consisted of periodic conferences to help bring about unity of belief. The first of the Sabbatarian conferences convened in the spring of 1848. At least five more met that year, another six in 1849, and 10 in 1850. James White’s report of the first conference illustrates both their purpose and some of the dynamics involved. “We had a meeting that evening (Thursday, April 20, 1848] of about fifteen in all,” White wrote. “Friday morning the brethren came in until we num- bered about fifty. They were not all fully in the truth. Our meeting that day was very interesting. Bro. Bates presented the commandments in a clear light, and their importance was urged home by powerful testimonies. The word had effect to establish those already in the truth and to awaken those who were not fully decided” (in 2SG 93). The significance of the conferences appear even more clearly in Ellen White’s report of the second one. “There were about thirty-five present,” she reported, “all that could be col- lected in that part of the State. There were hardly two agreed. Each was strenuous for his views, declaring that they were ac- cording to the Bible. All were anxious for an opportunity to advance their sentiments, or to preach to us. They were told that we had not come so great a distance to hear them, but had come to teach them the truth” (2SG 97, 98; italics supplied). Note that Bates and the Whites took a strong leadership role in both calling for and guiding the conferences. It required force- ful, goal-oriented leadership to form a body of believers within the chaotic conditions of post-disappointment Adventism. The second avenue that the Sabbatarian leadership used to gather in a people involved the development of various peri- odicals. At the Sabbatarian conference held in Dorchester, Massachusetts, during November 1848, Ellen White had a vision with special implications for her husband. After coming 31Organizing for Mission and Growth out of it, she told him that he “must begin to print a little paper and send it out to the people.” It would be small at first, but eventually it would be “like streams of light that went clear round the world” (LS 125). Eight months passed before James could follow her instruc- tion. But July 1849 saw the publication of the first issue of Present Truth. Its main purpose was to set forth what the Sabbatarian leaders saw as the issues for their time—the Sab- bath, the three angels’ messages, and related topics. During the summer of 1850 James released the first issue of the Advent Review—a journal that reprinted many of the most important articles of the early 1840s in an attempt to impress the scat- tered Millerites with the forcefulness and truthfulness of the arguments undergirding the 1844 movement. November 1850 witnessed the combining of the Present Truth and the Advent Review into The Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. We should note that the two methods that the Sabbatarians used to gather in a people were not only evangelistic but also provided their first organizational format. After all, the Sabba- tarian conferences led to the eventual founding of companies or congregations of Sabbatarian believers. The 1850s would witness the continuation of periodic conferences as the various congre- gations of Sabbathkeeping Adventists sent members to represent them in general meetings of Sabbatarian believers. The Review and Herald (as many affectionately called it) not only printed notices and resolutions of those meetings, but also provided the scattered Sabbatarians with news of their “church” and fellow believers, sermons, and a sense of belong- ing. Thus the Review was probably the most effective instru- ment in both gathering and uniting the body of believers who would become Seventh-day Adventists in the 1860s. In 1852 another brainchild of James White—the Youth’s Instructor— joined the Review. That periodical not only had an eye to 32Redefining Babylon (1844-1859) keeping Sabbatarian young people in the fold, but for years it had a primary uniting function in that it printed the Sabbath school lessons for believers. In summary, we should recognize that by the early 1850s the Sabbatarians had largely replicated the organizational structure of the Christian Connexion from which James White and Bates had migrated. Throughout the 1850s the Sabbatar- ian movement would consist of a loose association of congre- gations and individuals united through the agency of periodicals and “conferences,” or general meetings, of believ- ers. Thus, whether they realized it or not, the Sabbatarians were operating with the same type of church order as that of the Con- nexionists and the Millerites. But the continuation of time, the rapid growth in the num- ber of Sabbatarians, and their expanding vision of mission would soon demand further organizational initiatives. Problems in the Camp and the Call for “Gospel Order” A second stimulus that drove the Sabbatarians toward de- veloping a more extensive system of church organization de- rived from a need to maintain ethical and doctrinal unity. Problems related to those issues would arise soon after the be- ginning of the gathering time and would culminate in both of the Whites firmly appealing for “gospel order” in the latter part of 1853. The 1853 initiatives would not be the first requests for more extensive organization. As early as September 1849 James White argued for financial support for the movement's traveling preachers and the need to “suspend” one woman “from fellowship” (JW to Bro. and Sis. Collins, Sept. 8, 1849). A few months later, in the context of remarks concerning an individual whom he believed God had not called to be a OFMAG-2 33Organizing for Mission and Growth traveling preacher, he wrote of the need to move in “gospel order” (JW to Bro., Mar. 18, 1850). His wife’s concerns seem to have paralleled James’s. In December 1850 she wrote: “I saw that everything in heaven was in perfect order. Said the angel, ‘Look ye; Christ is the head; move in order, move in order. Have a meaning to everything.’ Said the angel, ‘Behold ye, and know how perfect, how beauti- ful the order in heaven; follow it.’” She went on to speak of fa- naticism and of those who had been disfellowshipped because of their improper behavior. Near the conclusion she noted that “if Israel [i.e., the church] moved steadily along, going according to Bible order, they would be as terrible as an army with banners” (EGW, MS 11, Dec. 25, 1850). James and Ellen White’s early concerns regarding organi- zation seem to be essentially the same. Both feared disorderly, fanatical, and unauthorized representatives within the budding Sabbatarian movement. The early 1850s observed rapid growth in the number of individuals attracted by the logic of the Sabbatarians’ preach- ing of the three angels’ messages. In May 1852 James White es- timated that the number of Sabbatarian Adventists in New York had gone from 20 to nearly 1,000 in three years, while ad- herents in the Western states had risen from zero to “several hundred.” Beyond those figures, he asserted that proportionate growth in some parts of New England had been greater than in New York, and that the number in Canada had grown from none to a “goodly number” (RH, May 6, 1852, 5). Thus it seems safe to conclude that there may have been as many as 2,000 Sabbatarian Adventists by 1852. While that growth was good, it brought with it new prob- lems and challenges while aggravating some of the older prob- lems already facing the young movement. Many new congre- gations of Sabbathkeepers had formed, but no order existed 34Redefining Babylon (1844-1859) among them even at the congregational level. That made them easy prey to fanatics and unauthorized preachers from both inside and outside their local group. Such a state of affairs in 1851 led the Whites to believe that the movement required their personal presence from time to time to modify and cor- rect abuses. Thus the next few years would see their reports in the Review with such titles as “Our Tour East.” On those tours the Whites repeatedly dealt with fanaticism and church order at the congregational level. At a conference in Medford, Massachusetts, in late 1851, for example, James White stated that “the burden of the meeting was Church Order, pointing out the errors of S. Smith, H. W. Allen, and the importance of church action [withdrawing fellowship] as to the course of some brethren” (JW to Brethren, Nov. 11, 1851). At various locations on the same tour White reported disfel- lowshipping one who had “fallen a victim to the bewitching power of spiritualism” at Washington, New Hampshire; of re- buking fanaticism and “opposing spirits” and speaking upon “gospel order and perfect union among the brethren, especially those who preach the Word” at Johnson, Vermont; and of the “importance of union” at Bethel, Vermont (RH, Nov. 25, 1851, 52; see also 1 Bio 216-26). The 1851 eastern tour is also significant since accounts of it provide our first information on the appointment of officers at the local church level. Thus we read that at the Wash- ington, New Hampshire, conference “a committee of seven was chosen (see Acts vi) to attend to the wants of the poor” (RH, Nov. 25, 1851, 52). Earlier that year the Review reported for the first time an ordination in Sabbatarian ranks. In July “Bro. [Washington] Morse was set apart by the laying on of hands, to the administration of the ordinances of God’s house. The Holy Ghost witnessed by the gift of tongues, and solemn manifestations of the presence and power of God. The place 35Organizing for Mission and Growth was awful, yet glorious” (RH, Aug. 19, 1851, 15). By 1852 the Sabbatarians had come to see themselves less as a “scattered flock” and more as a church. A reinterpretation of the shut door doctrine accompanied that recognition. They gradually concluded that probation for the world at large had not closed in 1844 and that they had a mission to those who had not been in the Millerite movement. Such realizations would add their weight in pressing the Sabbatarians toward a more substantial organization. The major problem they faced in the early 1850s was that they had no systematic defense against impostors. Almost any- body who wanted to could preach in Sabbatarian congrega- tions. Large sectors of Adventism had no checks on ministerial orthodoxy or even morality as it faced the crisis of a self- appointed ministry. That problem was endemic to all of the ex-Millerite de- nominations before they organized in the late 1850s and early 1860s. One letter to an Albany Adventist paper, for example, complained that their congregation in 1850 had “again been troubled with what we consider to be false teaching. .. . About three weeks since, a man by the name of Joseph Bates arrived here by stage, professing to be an Advent preacher, furnished with charts and numerous publications. We had an interview with him, and found his ‘message’ was the Sabbath, or seventh day, and shut door.” Himes, the editor, replied: “Capt. Bates is an old personal friend of ours, and so far as we know, is better as a man than most of his associates; but we have no confi- dence in his teaching.—He should not be tolerated for a mo- ment” (AH, May 4, 1850, 110, 111). The real problem that all of the ex-Millerite religious bod- ies faced was that of boundaries. If Bates felt free to do evan- gelism among first-day congregations, they were more than eager to return the favor. Worse yet were those insincere im- 36Redefining Babylon (1844-1859) postors whose primary aim was to fleece the saints financially. The year 1853 would see the Sabbatarians take two steps to protect their congregations from “false” brethren. First, the lead- ing Sabbatarian ministers adopted a plan whereby approved preachers received a card “recommending them to the fellow- ship of the Lord’s people everywhere, simply stating that they were approved in the work of the gospel ministry.” Two minis- ters known by Sabbatarian Adventists to be leaders of the move- ment dated and signed the cards. The one received by John Loughborough in January 1853 carried the signatures of James White and Joseph Bates (JNL, The Church, 101). The second method utilized by the Sabbatarians to certify their leaders was ordination. By late 1853 they regularly or- dained both traveling preachers (ministers assigned to specific congregations did not yet exist) and deacons (who appear to be the only local church officers at that early period). Even though the Sabbatarian leaders had begun to tighten up their structure, they were still quite vulnerable, a reality evi- dent in Ellen White’s report of her and James’s fall 1853 eastern tour. “This was,” she reported, “a laborious and rather discour- aging journey. Many had embraced the truth who were unsanc- tified in heart and life; the elements of strife and rebellion were at work, and it was necessary that a movement should take place to purify the church” (LS 150, 151). With that state of affairs in mind, it is not difficult to see why she and her husband both issued major calls for “gospel order” in December 1853. James led the assault for better orga- nization with four articles in the Review entitled “Gospel Order.” His December 6 article redefined Babylon in the Sabbatarian context. “It is a lamentable fact,” he asserted, “that many of our Advent brethren who made a timely escape from the bondage of the different churches [Babylon] . . . have since been in a more perfect Babylon than ever before. Gospel order 37Organizing for Mission and Growth has been too much overlooked by them. . . . Many in their zeal to come out of Babylon, partook of a rash, disorderly spirit, and were soon found in a perfect Babylon of confusion. . . . To suppose that the church of Christ is free from restraint and discipline, is the wildest fanaticism” (RH, Dec. 6, 1853, 173; italics supplied). The second article urged union of sentiment and action based on the Bible as a “perfect rule of faith and practice.” The third dealt with the calling, qualification, and ordination of ministers, since “in no one thing has the gospel suffered so much as by the influence of false teachers.” The fourth seg- ment of White’s series argued that the church as a whole needed to support its ministers through prayer and finances (RH, Dec. 13, 1853, 180; Dec. 20, 188-190; Dec. 27, 196, 197). Late December 1853 also saw Ellen White’s first extensive call for further order. Basing her sentiments on a vision re- ceived during her and James’s eastern tour in the fall of 1852, she wrote that “the Lord has shown that gospel order has been too much feared and neglected. Formality should be shunned; but, in so doing, order should not be neglected. There is order in heaven. There was order in the church when Christ was upon the earth, and after His departure order was strictly observed among His apostles. And now in these last days, while God is bringing His children into the unity of the faith, there is more real need of order than ever before.” Most of her article dealt with the problems raised by the “self-sent messengers” who were “a curse to the cause” of the Sabbatarians. As did James, she dealt with the qualifications of ministers and the ordination of those approved by “brethren of experience and of sound minds” (EW, 97, 99, 101; italics supplied). Ongoing Discussion Amid Growing Tensions James and Ellen White’s minds were quite settled by the beginning of 1854 on the need for more order and structure 38Redefining Babylon (1844-1859) among the Sabbatarians. James not only considered it impor- tant, he also believed that the movement wouldn’t see much progress without it. Thus he could write in March that God “is waiting for his people to get right, and in gospel order, and hold the standard of piety high, before he adds many more to our numbers” (RH, Mar. 28, 1854, 76). The fact that Sabbatarian Adventism also faced its first or- ganized schisms at that time undoubtedly reinforced James’s convictions on the topic of gospel order. By early 1854 two ministers, H. S. Case and C. P. Russell, had turned against the Whites. During the fall of that year they began their own paper, the Messenger of Truth, which they hoped would not only rival the Review and Herald but would also bring a signifi- cant number of Sabbatarians under their influence. Concurrent with the rise of the Messenger Party was the de- fection of two of the four Sabbatarian preachers in Wisconsin. J. M. Stephenson and D. P. Hall began to promote a temporal millennium and age-to-come view that proposed a second chance at conversion during the millennium. Before long the two Wisconsin preachers had joined forces with the Messengers. With so many unruly individuals in their midst, it is little wonder that the Sabbatarians during the second half of the 1850s increasingly penned articles reflecting a developing un- derstanding of Bible principles related to church order and the ordination of approved leaders. In addition to James White, who continued to argue against the “perfect Babel of confu- sion” among Adventists, Joseph Bates would also take part in the discussion. In harmony with his Connexionist background, Bates claimed that biblical church order must be restored to the church before the Second Advent. He argued that during the Middle Ages the “law-breakers” “deranged” such essential ele- ments of Christianity as the Sabbath and biblical church order. 39Organizing for Mission and Growth God had used the Sabbatarian Adventists to restore the sev- enth-day Sabbath and it was “perfectly clear” to his mind “that God will employ law-keepers as instruments to restore .. . a ‘glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle’... . This unity of the faith, and perfect church order, never has existed since the days of the apostles. It is very clear that it must exist prior to the second advent of Jesus, and be completed by the refreshing from the presence of the Lord, in restoration of all things, &c” (RH, Aug. 29, 1854, 22, 23). Bates was quite clear that the apostolic order of the church needed to be restored. He made no room for any element of or- ganization not found in the New Testament. James White at this early period shared a similar opinion. Thus he could write in 1854 that “by gospel, or church order we mean that order in church association and discipline taught in the gospel of Jesus Christ by the writers of the New Testament” (RH, Mar. 28, 1854, 76). A few months later he spoke of the “perfect system of order, set forth in the New Testament, by inspiration of God. ... The Scriptures present a perfect system, which, if car- tied out, will save the Church from Imposters” and provide the ministers with an adequate platform for carrying out the work of the church (RH, Jan. 23, 1855, 164). J. B. Frisbie, the most active writer in the Review in the mid 1850s on church order, agreed with Bates and White that every aspect of church order needed to be explicitly spelled out in the Bible. Thus he argued against any church name except the one given by God in the Bible. As he put it, “THE CHURCH oF Gop... is the only name that God has seen fit to give his church.” He then referred his readers to such texts as 2 Corinthians 1:1 (“the church of God which is at Corinth”), noting that “it is very evident that God never designed that his church should be called by any other name than the one he has given.” Every other name, such as Lutheran, Roman Catholic, 40Redefining Babylon (1844-1859) and Methodist, were human inventions and “savors more of Babylon, confusion, mixture, than it does” of God’s church. By the same logic, Frisbie implied, along with other Adventists, they should not keep church membership lists since the names of God’s children are recorded in the books of heaven (RH, Dec. 26, 1854, 147). With their literalistic biblical approach to church order it is of little surprise that Frisbie and others soon began to discuss the duty of a second local church officer—the elder. In January 1855 he noted “two classes of preaching elders” in the New Testament churches—“traveling elders” and “local elders.” The traveling elders had a supervisory role over several churches, whereas “local elders . . . had the pastoral care and oversight of one church.” He went on to observe that local churches should have both elders and deacons. The first, he pointed out, “had the oversight of the spiritual, the other the temporal affairs of the church” (RH, Jan. 9, 1855, 155). By the end of the year Sabbatarians were ordaining local elders as well as deacons and pastors. Gradually they were strengthening gospel order at the level of the local church. In fact, the individual congregation was the only level of organization that most Sabbatarians gave much thought to. Thus such leaders as Bates could preface an extended article on “Church Order” with the following defini- tion: “CHURCH, signifies a particular congregation of believers in Christ, united together in the order of the gospel” (RH, Aug. 29, 1854, 22). In the second half of the 1850s the church-order debate among Sabbatarians would focus on what it meant for congrega- tions to be “united together.” At least four issues would force leaders such as James White to look at church organization more globally. The first had to do with the legal ownership of prop- erty—especially the publishing office and church buildings. The 41Organizing for Mission and Growth responsibility of owning everything in his own name prompted White to resign as editor of the Review in late 1855. Not being ready yet for legal incorporation, he suggested that a committee own the publishing house and that a financial committee han- dle the business matters related to the Sabbatarians’ growing publishing enterprise (RH, Dec. 4, 1855, 76; JW to Bro. Dodge, Aug. 20, 1855). Similar suggestions appeared in regard to the holding of church property. A second issue pushing White and others toward a broader church organization concerned the problem of paying preach- ers. We noted previously that he had first raised the topic in 1849. But talking about the issue without some sort of system to deal with it didn’t help much. As Sabbatarian work ex- panded, in fact, things got worse. Sabbatarian preachers were overworked and underpaid—a sure formula for disaster. A case in point involved young John Nevins Andrews, a man who later served the church as its leading scholar, its first “official” foreign missionary, and a General Conference presi- dent. But in the mid-1850s exhaustion and deprivation had forced him into retiring from the ministry while only in his mid-20s. The fall of 1856 found him becoming a clerk in his uncle’s store in Waukon, Iowa. Waukon, in fact, was rapidly be- coming a colony of apathetic Sabbatarian Adventists. Another leading minister who fled to Waukon in 1856 was John N. Loughborough, who had become, as he put it, “somewhat dis- couraged as to finances” (JNL, Rise and Progress of SDAs, 208). The Whites temporarily averted a crisis in the Adventist ministry by making a danger-filled midwinter journey to Waukon to wake up the sleeping Adventist community and to reclaim the dropout ministers. Both Andrews and Lough- borough saw the hand of God in the visit and rededicated their lives to preaching the Sabbatarian message. But that rededication did not change the objective finan- 42Redefining Babylon (1844-1859) cial realities. For example, for his first three months’ labor after leaving Waukon, Loughborough received room and board, a buffalo-skin overcoat worth about $10, and $10 in cash as pay for his ministerial labor. The problem was far from solved. Anticipating the financial problems, the Battle Creek, Michigan, congregation (the strongest and most influential Sab- batarian congregation) formed a study group in the spring of 1858 to search the Bible for a plan to support the ministry. Under the leadership of Andrews, the group developed a report accepted in early 1859. The plan of Systematic Benevolence (or “Sister Betsy,” as many soon nicknamed it) encouraged men to contribute 5 to 25 cents per week, and women 2 to 10 cents. In addition, both groups were assessed 1 to 5 cents per week for each $100 unit of property they owned. James White was jubilant over the plan, believing that it would leave the ministers free from financial embarrassment so that they could work more effectively. His wife was equally grateful. “I saw,” she penned in 1859, “that there should be order in the church of God, and that system is needed in car- tying forward successfully the last great message of mercy to the world. God is leading His people in the plan of systematic benevolence” (1T 191). Of course, it was one thing to have a plan for paying preachers and quite another thing to administrate it in a reli- gious group that had no settled pastors. Proper collection and distribution of the funds logically predicated organizational de- velopments beyond the congregational level. Closely related to a system for remunerating preachers was a third issue that drove White to a broader form of church or- ganization—the assignment of preachers. In 1859 White wrote that whereas such communities as Battle Creek often had sev- eral preachers on hand, others remained “destitute, not having 43Organizing for Mission and Growth heard a discourse for three months.” Recognizing the situation to be a genuine problem, White went on to note that “system in labor, or, in locating preachers’ families near their fields of labor, may be called for” as well as financial support. He ap- pealed to the churches to send their requests to him personally (RH, June 16, 1859, 28). Thus it appears that by 1859 James White was acting the part of superintendent in the assignment and paying of preach- ers, but without any official structure to undergird his efforts. Such a situation was not only difficult, it also left him open to criticism regarding mismanagement and the misappropriation of funds. He had come to realize that Sabbatarians needed a broader system. A fourth problem that raised the issue of a more adequate church structure resulted from the question of transferring membership. It was especially difficult when a person had been disfellowshipped by one congregation and desired fellowship with another. How should they handle membership transfers between congregations? And how should independent congre- gations relate to each other? (see RH, Sept. 18, 1856, 158; Oct. 23, 1856, 198). Time for Action and the Redefinition of Babylon By the middle of 1859 White was ready to open the final drive for formal denominational organization. At a conference of believers held in Battle Creek he presented a major paper on Systematic Benevolence, since “the shortness of time and the vast importance of the truth calls upon us in the most impera- tive manner to extend missionary labor.” He went on to tell the delegates that the way the movement paid ministers was a “blot on the cause.” The proposal for financing ministerial labor was “unanimously carried” (RH, June 9, 1859, 20-23). The next month he laid down the gauntlet in no uncertain 44Redefining Babylon (1844-1859) terms. “We lack system,” he cried on July 21. “Many of our brethren are in a scattered state. They observe the Sabbath, read with some interest the REVIEW: but beyond this they are doing but little or nothing for want of some method of united action among them.” To meet the situation, he called for regular meetings in each state (yearly in some and four or five times a year in others) to give guidance to the work of the Sabbatarians in that region (RH, July 21, 1859, 68; italics supplied). “We are aware,” he wrote, “that these suggestions will not meet the minds of all. Bro. Overcautious will be frightened, and will be ready to warn his brethren to be careful and not venture out too far; while Bro. Confusion will cry out, ‘O, this looks just like Babylon! Following the fallen church!’ Bro. Do- little will say, ‘The cause is the Lord’s, and we had better leave it in his hands, he will take care of it.’ ‘Amen,’ says Love-this- world, Slothful, Selfish, and Stingy, ‘if God calls men to preach, let them go out and preach, he will take care of them, and those who believe their message’; while Korah, Dathan and Abiram are ready to rebel against those who feel the weight of the cause [e.g., James White] and who watch for souls as those who must give account, and raise the cry, ‘You take too much upon you’” (ibid.). White let it be known in the most descriptive language that he was sick and tired of the cry of Babylon every time that anyone mentioned organization. “Bro. Confusion,” he penned, “makes a most egregious blunder in calling system, which is in harmony with the Bible and good sense, Babylon. As Babylon signifies confusion, our erring brother has the very word stamped upon his own forehead. And we venture to say that there is not an- other people under heaven more worthy of the brand of Babylon than those professing the Advent faith who reject Bible order. Is it not high time that we as a people heartily embrace everything that is good and right in the churches? Is it not blind folly to 45Organizing for Mission and Growth start back at the idea of system, found everywhere in the Bible, simply because it is observed in the fallen churches?” (ibid.; italics supplied). As one who had the “weight of the cause” upon him, James White felt impelled to take his stand for better organization among Sabbatarians. Castigating those who thought that “all that was necessary to run a train of cars was to use the brake well” (ibid.), he firmly believed that in order to get the Advent movement moving it had to organize. That task he would pur- sue with full vigor between 1860 and 1863. Meanwhile, James’s strategic place in the Sabbatarian movement had given him a scope of vision that not only sep- arated him from the reasoning processes of many of his fellow believers but had transformed his own thinking. Three points White raised in 1859 are of special importance as we look for- ward to his organizing activities in the early 1860s. First, he had moved beyond the biblical literalism of his earlier days when he believed that the Bible must explicitly spell out each aspect of church organization. In 1859 he argued that “we should not be afraid of that system which is not op- posed by the Bible, and is approved by sound sense” (ibid.). Thus he had come to a new hermeneutic. He had moved from a principle of Bible interpretation that held that the only things Scripture allowed were those things it explicitly approved to a hermeneutic that approved of anything that did not contradict the Bible. That shift was essential to the creative steps in church organization he would advocate in the 1860s. That revised hermeneutic, however, put White in opposi- tion to those, such as Frisbie and R. F. Cottrell, who main- tained a literalistic approach to the Bible that demanded that it explicitly spell something out before the church could accept it. To answer that mentality, White noted that nowhere in the Bible did it say that Christians should have a weekly paper, a 46Redefining Babylon (1844-1859) steam printing press, build places of worship, or publish books. He went on to argue that the “living church of God” needed to move forward with prayer and common sense (ibid.). White’s second point involves a redefinition of Babylon. The earliest Adventists had approached the concept in rela- tion to oppression and applied it to the existing denomina- tions. White reinterpreted it in terms of confusion and applied it to his fellow Sabbatarians. By 1859 his goal had advanced to steering the Advent cause between the twin pitfalls of Babylon as oppressor and Babylon as confusion. White’s third point concerned mission. Sabbatarians must organize if they were to fulfill their responsibility to preach the three angels’ messages. Thus between 1856 and 1859 White had shifted from a liter- alistic perspective to one much more pragmatic. Why, we might ask, did he make such a move while others among the Sabbatarian ministers remained rooted in their biblical (or, more accurately, unbiblical) literalism? | would suggest that the differ- ence had to do with the fact that he was the one who felt the bulk of the responsibility for the Sabbatarian movement. Seeing the issues in the framework of a larger context forced him to think big and creatively. His compatriots could afford their doctrinaire opinions because they had no vision. They were willing to spend their time thinking good Adventist thoughts and communicat- ing with other Adventists through the pages of the Review. One gets the impression that they would have been content to remain in a state of more-or-less isolated purity until the Advent. But James White by this time had come to recognize that pragmatics would have to come into play if the Advent movement was to get moving adequately. He refused to think small, felt impelled to move on, and would in the next three years take aggressive steps to put Adventism on a firm organizational base in harmony with Bible principles and commensurate with its mission in the world. 47CHAPTER 3 Organizing for Mission and Growth (1860-1863) lhe years 1848 through 1859 had revealed several seri- ous issues faced by the growing body of Sabbatarian Adventists. The Whites had urged “gospel order” since 1853, but many objected to any organization as a move toward Babylon. By 1859, however, James White was absolutely con- vinced that something must be done and that the time to act had arrived. The years 1860 through 1863 would see signifi- cant steps taken to progressively organize the Seventh-day Adventist Church, finally climaxing with the formation of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in May 1863. Legally Holding Church Property and Choosing a Name, 1860 James White raised the question of incorporating church prop- erty in February 1860 so that it could be legally held and insured. He flatly stated that he refused to sign notes of responsibility for in- dividuals who desired to lend their money to the publishing house. Thus the movement needed to make arrangements to hold church property in a “proper manner” (RH, Feb. 23, 1860, 108). 48Organizing for Mission and Growth (1860-1863) White’s suggestion called forth a vigorous reaction from R. F. Cottrell—a corresponding editor of the Review and the leader of those opposed to church organization. Recognizing that a church could not incorporate unless it had a name, Cottrell wrote that he believed “it would be wrong to ‘make us aname,’ since that lies at the foundation of Babylon.” His sug- gestion was that Adventists needed to trust in the Lord, who would repay them for any unjust losses at the end of time. “If any man proves a Judas, we can still bear the loss and trust the Lord” (RH, Mar. 22, 1860, 140, 141). The next issue of the Review saw a spirited response from White, who expressed himself “not a little surprised” at Cot- trell’s remarks. He pointed out that the publishing office alone had thousands of dollars invested “without one legal owner.” “The Devil is not dead,” he asserted, and under such circum- stances he knew how to shut down the publishing house. White went on to claim that he regarded “it dangerous to leave with the Lord what he has left with us, and thus sit down upon the stool of do little, or nothing. Now it is perfectly right to leave the sun, moon and stars with the Lord; also the earth with its revolutions, the ebbing and flowing of the tides. . . . But if God in his everlasting word calls on us to act the part of faith- ful stewards of his goods, we had better attend to these matters in a legal manner—the only way we can handle real estate in this world.” Cottrell responded with a conciliatory letter, not- ing that he did not want to be out of harmony with the body of the church (RH, Mar. 29, 1860, 152; May 3, 1860, 188). On April 26 James White made a much more extensive reply to Cottrell, arguing that as long as “we are stewards of our Lord’s goods here in the land of the enemy, it is our duty to conform to the laws of the land necessary to the faithful per- formance of our stewardship, as long as human laws do not op- pose the divine law.” White, significantly, also raised again the 49Organizing for Mission and Growth hermeneutical argument that he had used against the biblical literalists in 1859. Acknowledging that he could find no plain text of Scripture for holding property legally, he pointed out that the church did many things for which it could find no Bible text. He then moved on to Jesus’ command to let “‘your light so shine before men,’” pointing out that He did “not give all the particulars how this shall be done.” At that point he wrote that “we believe it safe to be governed by the following RULE. All means which, according to sound judgment, will advance the cause of truth, and are not forbidden by plain scripture declarations, should be employed” (RH, Apr. 26, 1860, 180-182). With that declaration White placed himself fully on the platform of a pragmatic, commonsense approach to all issues not definitely settled in the Bible. Ellen White appears to have agreed with her husband on the topic of church organization. She penned that Cottrell had taken a “wrong stand” and that “his articles were perfectly cal- culated to have a scattering influence, to lead minds to wrong conclusions.” Then she put her influence behind that of her husband’s in calling for church order so as “to place the mat- ters of the church in a more secure position, where Satan can- not come in and take advantage” (1T 211). The pages of the Review throughout the summer of 1860 indicate that some of the Sabbatarians were coming more into harmony with James White on the topic of incorporating the publishing house and other aspects of organization. In the meantime, certain individual congregations had begun to or- ganize legally in order to protect their property. James’s recital of the sad case of the Millerites in Cincinnati undoubtedly mo- tivated them. The believers in that place had built a meeting- house on a lot belonging to one of them. Since the building sat on his property, it was legally his. That was fine until he bowed to temptation, got possession of the key, and “locked out the 50Organizing for Mission and Growth (1860-1863) congregation, and the place built and consecrated for the wor- ship of God was turned into a vinegar” factory for the profit of the property owner. White went on to note that the congrega- tion soon built a second chapel on another member’s lot whom they felt they “could certainly trust.” But “he played a similar trick” (RH, Apr. 26, 1860, 180). To forestall similar difficulties, various local Sabbatarian congregations began to organize in mid-1860. In May the Park- ville, Michigan, church adopted articles of association, using the name Parkville Church of Christ’s Second Advent. A few weeks later the Fairfield, lowa, congregation organized, “sur- naming themselves ‘The church of the living God’” (AdHer, July 1974, 30). The property difficulty came to a head at a conference James White called in Battle Creek to discuss the problem along with the related issues of legal incorporation and a formal name, a requirement for incorporation. Between September 29 and October 2, 1860, delegates from at least five states discussed the situation and possible solutions in great detail. All agreed that whatever they did should be according to the Bible, but as we might expect, they disagreed over the hermeneutical issue of whether something needed to be explicitly mentioned in the Bible. James White, as usual, argued that “every Christian duty is not given in the Scriptures” (RH, Oct. 16, 1860, 169). That essential point had to be recognized before they could make any progress toward legal organization. Gradually, as the various problems and options surfaced, the majority of the candidates accepted White’s hermeneutical rule. The October 1860 conference accomplished three main goals. The first involved the adoption of a constitution for the legal incorporation of the publishing association. The second was that “individual churches so . . . organize as to hold their church property or church buildings legally.” James White, still 51Organizing for Mission and Growth fighting the hermeneutical battle with the proof-texters, twice called the objectors to produce “one text of scripture to show that this is wrong.” Not being able to find such a passage or to match his logic, the objectors surrendered and the motion car- tied (RH, Oct. 16, 1860, 170, 171). The third goal accomplished at the October 1860 meetings concerned the selection of a denominational name, since the delegates finally agreed that there was no way to escape being viewed as a denomination by those looking at the movement from the outside. Many favored the name “Church of God,” but the group did not accept it because several other religious bodies already used it. James White noted that the name adopted should not be objectionable to the world at large. Finally, David Hewitt resolved “that we take the name of Seventh-day Adventists.” His motion carried, many delegates recognizing that it was “expressive of our faith and [doctrinal] position” (RH, Oct. 23, 1860, 179). According to the exten- sive records of the conference, Ellen White remained silent, but she would later express her exuberant opinion on the name. “The name Seventh-day Adventist,” she declared after the meetings, “carries the true features of our faith in front, and will convict the inquiring mind. Like an arrow from the Lord’s quiver, it will wound the transgressors of God’s law, and will lead to repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (1T 224). The 1860 meetings had accomplished much, but much yet remained to be done. The achievements of 1861 would build upon the platform established in 1860. Forming Local Conferences, 1861 The next step in the development of organization in Sabbatarian Adventism took place between April 26 and 29, 1861, at a special conference in Battle Creek called to discuss 52Organizing for Mission and Growth (1860-1863) the issue. At that meeting two important issues came up. First, it took the final steps to fully legalize the publishing house. Thus the incorporation of the Seventh-day Adventist Pub- lishing Association became official on May 3. Of equal importance was J. N. Loughborough’s call for a “more complete organization of the church. We had come,” he noted, “to that point where the cause of God demanded orga- nization, not that organization which constituted Babylon, but such as would insure order in the church.” In response to Loughborough’s plea, the delegates voted that a committee of nine ministers develop a paper on church organization and publish it in the Review (RH, Apr. 30, 1861, 189). That document appeared June 11. It set forth three crucial is- sues. First, after pointing out that the so-called “general confer- ences” (really general meetings) of the believers held in the past had been disproportionate in terms of representation, the com- mittee urged that believers take steps to ensure that future gen- eral meetings genuinely represented the various localities and congregations making up the Seventh-day Adventist movement. Second, the committee recommended the formation of state or district conferences. Such state conferences would not only certify ministers, but would also “be a great benefit by sup- plying 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.” The state conferences would transact business through “the delegates of the churches.” The third recommendation called for a more thorough or- ganization of local churches for effective service and spiritual growth. More specifically, the memorial suggested that each church keep an up-to-date list of its members, that a system of letters of transfer be developed for members in good standing who moved from one congregation to another, and that written 53Organizing for Mission and Growth records be kept of both business transactions and disciplinary cases. The document gave as its reason for its suggestions the fact that immoral members or ex-members too often imposed themselves on unsuspecting churches. Thus the article recom- mended the local congregation as the clearinghouse for indi- vidual church members in much the same manner that the local conference was to certify the good standing of ministers (RH, June 11, 1860, 21, 22). The June 11 memorial also raised the issue of church offi- cers and their duties. However, the committee suggested that a separate document might better treat the topic. Reactions to the committee’s recommendations were force- ful in some sectors of the church—especially in the East. Re- porting on his annual eastern tour, White wrote in August that he left New York “stung with the thought that the balance of in- fluence is either against, or silent upon, the subject of organiza- tion.” Many of the eastern leaders apparently believed that White and those in the Midwest had apostatized from the truth in the area of organization (RH, Sept. 3, 1861, 108). White, of course, took vigorous exception to the anti-orga- nization faction. Reporting that “the brethren in Pennsylvania voted down organization, and the cause in Ohio has been dread- fully shaken,” White summarized his feelings by writing that “on our eastem tour thus far we seem to be wading through the influence of a stupid uncertainty upon the subject of organization.” He blamed the prevailing “stupid uncertainty” on the articles by Cottrell a year earlier. Even though Cottrell had changed his mind, the “poison of anti-organization” still ran rampant through the ranks of his readers. James castigated those prominent ministers who failed to openly state their positive feelings on the topic of orga- nization and considered them largely to blame for the current state of affairs. If they only would have spoken out, most believ- ers would have accepted organization. But as it was, “instead of 54Organizing for Mission and Growth (1860-1863) our being a united people, growing stronger, we are in many places but little better than broken fragments, still scattering and growing weaker.” “How long shall we wait?” he inquired of the Review readers (RH, Aug. 27, 1861, 100; italics supplied). Ellen White was just as agitated on the topic of organiza- tion as her husband. She reported a vision on August 3, 1861, in which she 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. And now unless the churches are so organized that they can carry out and en- force order, they have nothing to hope for in the future; they must scatter into fragments.” Like James, she deplored the lack of “moral courage” and an abundance of “cowardly silence” on the part of those ministers who believed in organization but had remained silent. Her words left no doubt that the time had come to “stand together” on the issue of church organization (1T 270-272; italics supplied). The time for action had arrived. James’s August and Sep- tember comments on his eastern tour had elicited a flood of replies from those who supported him. Accordingly, a general meeting convened in Battle Creek from October 4 through 6, 1861, to form the first state conference. The October 1861 meeting is one of the pivotal events in Seventh-day Adventist history. The first item of business was “the proper manner of organizing churches.” As a part of that item, James White recommended that the members of each congregation formally organize by signing a church covenant. “We, the undersigned,” went his proposed covenant, “hereby associate ourselves together, as a church, taking the name, Seventh-day Adventists, covenanting to keep the command- ments of God, and the faith of Jesus Christ.” Although the session adopted the covenant, it generated an extensive discussion on the difference between a covenant and 55Organizing for Mission and Growth a creed. When all were convinced on the biblical appropriate- ness of signing a covenant, the discussion moved on to the me- chanics of organizing a church and appointing church officers. The delegates voted to assign the topic to a committee of min- isters to develop a plan that they would publish in the Review. The central item of business was the recommendation “to the churches in the State of Michigan to unite in one Con- ference, with the name of the Michigan Conference of Seventh- day Adventists.” The delegates adopted the recommendation along with a simple structure consisting of a conference presi- dent, a conference clerk, and a conference committee of three. For the first year Joseph Bates and Uriah Smith, the chair and secretary, respectively, of the organizing committee, would con- tinue on as president and clerk of the conference (RH, Oct. 8, 1861, 148). The next year delegates elected William S. Higley, a layperson, as president. Nine days after the close of the Battle Creek conference the Review published the recommendations of the committee appointed to work out the mechanics of church organization. The heart of the report dealt with church officers. The first class of officers were traveling evangelists or preachers, who had the duty of not only presenting the Word, but also of or- ganizing local churches and ordaining local church officers. Such individuals, as had already been decided, were to be ap- pointed by the local conference. The second class were local church officers, namely elders and deacons. Elders would lead their local congregation in spiritual matters, while the duties of deacons related to the temporal matters of the congregation in such areas as church finance and preparing for the ordinances. The committee report also dealt with the manner of organizing a church by covenant in a new area, the election of local church officers, and the reception of members through letters of transfer (RH, Oct. 15, 1861, 156, 157). 56