ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SEMINARY

DOCTORAL DISSERTATION SERIES

OraaiSzational
Past, Present, and, Future

Barry D a v id Oliver
 ASIR Research Center Uu.«*y

General Conference of Seventh-day Advent!

 ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SEMINARY
DOCTORAL DISSERTATION SERIES
VOLUME XV

SDA ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Past, Present and Future

by

Barry David Oliver

ANDREWS UNIVERSITY PRESS

BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN
Copyright© 1989

Published September 1989 by

Andrews University Press
Berrien Springs, Ml 49104

ISBN 0-943872-97-9
To Julie

with love

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................... viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................................. x

INTRODUCTION.................................................. 1

Background for the Study................................ 1

Statement of Purpose.................................... 5
Delimitations and Scope ................................ 6
Methodology and Sources ................................ 7
Need for the Study and Related Literature.............. 8

Chapter

I. THE NEED FOR REORGANIZATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE

EXPANDING MISSIONARY ENTERPRIZE OF THE CHURCH .......... 14

Introduction.................................. .. . . 14
Global Context: Colonialism and Mission.............. 16
National Context: Nationalism and Mission............ 17
Religious Context: The Gospel and Mission............ 19
Missionary Consciousness and Expansion............ 19
The Activist Style of American Mission ........ 21
A Penchant for Numerics.................. 23
Mission Theory ................................ 25
Motivation for Mission ........................ 27
Laypersons and Mission ........................ 29
The Student Volunteer Movement and Mission . . . 29
The Watchword of the Student Volunteer
Movement.................................... 32
Denominational Structures ........................ 34
Episcopal Forms of Church Government .......... 35
Presbyterian Forms of Church Government........ 37
Congregational Forms of Church Government. . . . 39
Seventh-day Adventist Denominational Context. . . . 40
The Missionary Enthusiasm and Rapid Growth
of the Young C h u r c h ........................ 42
The Shape of Organization: 1863-1888 .......... 46
Reasons for organization inthe 1860s. . . . 46
The form of organization adopted inthe 1860s 48
The role of Ellen G. White in organization
in the 1 8 6 0 s ............................ 55
The Problem of Administrative Centralization . . 57

iv
 Administrative centralization .............. 57
The nature of leadership.................... 62
Authority.................................. 63
Conclusion.......................................... 65

II. TOWARDS REORGANIZATION: 1888-1897 ...................... 67

Introduction ........................................ 67
Reorganization and the General Conference Session
of 1888 .......................................... 69
1888-1893 ........................................... 71
Districts One to Six.............................. 71
An Experiment in South Africa .................... 73
The Auxiliary Organizations of the General
Conference.............................. 82
The Role of the Auxiliary Organizations........ 82
The Control of the Auxiliary Organizations . . . 87
Ellen G. White and the Authority of the General
Conference.................................... 91
The 1893 General Conference Session .............. 100
1894-1897 ........................................... 104
The Australasian Union.................... 104
Reluctant Concessions ............................ 106
Institutional Growth and Its Consequences ........ 110
The Role of Institutions...................... 112
The Control of Institutions.................... 112
Ellen G. White: Consolidation and Centralization . . . 115
Consolidation of Institutional Control............ 115
Centralization of Decision Making Authority . . . . 119
The Auxiliary Organizations and Centralization. . . 126
Conclusion.......................................... 129

III. TOWARDS REORGANIZATION: 1897-1903 ...................... 132

Introduction ........................................ 132

The 1897 General Conference Session.................. 134
1898-1900 143
The European Union................................ 143
The Financial Predicament ........................ 144
Missionary Activity .............................. 155
Stalemate........................................ 158
The 1901 General Conference Session.................. 162
The Call for Reorganization...................... 162
Session Actions .................................. 170
Missionary Expansion ............................ 176
1902: Confrontation.................................. 179
The 1903 General Conference Session.................. 182
The Integration of the Medical Work into the
Conference Structure .......................... 183
At Issue over the Presidency...................... 184
The Response of Ellen G. White to Reorganization
and the Structure of the Denomination............ 201

v
 From Satisfaction to Despair...................... 201
Ellen G. White and the Possibility of Subsequent
Structural Change.............................. 205
Conclusion ........................................ 216

IV. THE THEOLOGICAL BASIS OF REORGANIZATION................ 218

Introduction ........................................ 218

The Theological Foundations for Reorganization
as Perceived by A. T. Jones and His
Associates: The Christocentric Model ............. 221
A Biblical Foundation ............................ 221
Soteriology...................................... 222
Eschatology...................................... 226
Ecclesiology...................................... 227
The Theological Foundations for Reorganization
as Perceived by A. G. Daniells and His
Allies: The Eschatological-Missiological
M o d e l ............................................ 240
Eschatology and Mission .......................... 244
Mission: Eschatology's Requirement ............ 244
"This Generation".............................. 248
Ecclesiology...................................... 253
Eccleslological Vacuum ........................ 254
Ecclesiastical Considerations.................. 259
The Ecclesiology of Ellen White................ 266
The Consequences of a Dipolar Ecclesiology . . . 270
Soteriology...................................... 270
C o n c l u s i o n ......................................... 271

V. THE PRINCIPLES OF REORGANIZATION........................ 274

Introduction ........................................ 274

Principles of Reorganization: the Christocentric
M o d e l ............................................ 280
Organizational Starting Point .................... 281
Principles of Reorganization...................... 283
Principles of Reorganization: the Eschatological-
Missiological M o d e l .............................. 291
Organizational Starting Point .................... 291
1901 and 1903: A Subtle Shift of Emphasis ........ 295
Principles of Reorganization...................... 296
Unity and Diversity............................ 296
The place of decentralization as
a principle of reorganization in 1901. . . 298
Concern for u n i t y .......................... 300
Participation or Representation................ 303
Local conference participation.............. 303
Union conference representation ............ 307
International representation................ 308
Consensus decision making .............. . . 311
Authority as a Principle of Reorganization . . . 314

vi
 Simplicity and Adaptability as Principles of
Reorganization.............................. 318
Conclusion ........................................ 320

VI. IMPLICATIONS FOR AN INTERNATIONAL CHURCH................ 323

Introduction ........................................ 323

Flexibility of Structural F o r m ...................... 326
A Functional Ecclesiology ........................ 327
Ellen G. White and Flexibility.................... 330
The Priority of Principle over F o r m .............. 331
Theological Awareness................................ 333
The Need for a Systematic Ecclesiology............ 333
The Need for a Hermeneutic for the Writings
of Ellen G. White.............................. 336
The Seventh-day Adventist Commitment to Mission. . . . 338
Unity in Diversity................................ 338
The Effect of the Primacy of Mission
on Denominational Structures .................. 346
An Eschatological Foundation for the Mission
of the C h u r c h .............................. 347
Mission and Contemporary Structure ............ 352
Conclusion.......................................... 356

VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . 358

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ 367

vii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

EGWB-AU Ellen G. White Estate branch office, Andrews

University, Berrien Springs, Michigan

EGWO-DC Ellen G. White Estate office, General

Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,
Washington, D.C.

FMB Pro Proceedings of Meetings of the Seventh-day

Adventist Foreign Mission Board. After 13
February 1899, Proceedings of the Board of
Trustees of the Foreign Mission Board of
Seventh-day Adventists

GCAr General Conference Archives, Washington, D.C.

GO Bulletin General Conference Bulletin (Dailv)

GCA Pro General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,

Proceedings of Meetings of the Seventh-day
Adventist General Conference Association

GCC Min General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,

Minutes of Meetings of the General Conference
Committee

IMMBA International Medical Missionary and Benevolent

Association

IMMBA Min Minutes of the meetings of the International

Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association

LB Letter Book

Review and Herald Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. Advent

Review. Second Advent Review. Review

RG Record Group

RH Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. Advent

Review. Second Advent Review. Review. Adventist
Review

vili
SDAHC-AU Seventh-day Adventist Heritage Center, Andrews
University, Berrien Springs, Mich.

SDAMMBA Seventh-day Adventist Medical Missionary and

Benevolent Association

SDAMMBA Min Minutes of the meetings of the Seventh-day

Adventist Medical Missionary and Benevolent
Association.

Sten 1901 Original Reports and Stenographically Reported

Discussions Thereof Had at the Thirty-Fourth
Biennial Session of the Seventh-day Adventist
General Conference. Held at Battle Creek,
Mich., April 2-23, 1901

Sten 1903 Stenographic Record of the Thirty-Fifth Session

of the General Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists Held at the S.D.A. Church, Oakland,
Calif., 27 March-12 April, 1903

ix
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The preparation of this dissertation has been a protracted

process. Although its formal writing has taken place during 1988, its

concepts have been formed in the crucible of pastoral, evangelistic,

teaching, and administrative experience over many years. That

experience has been gained not only in a unicultural setting but from

cross-cultural missionary service in Papua New Guinea. Therefore, the

study is not merely an academic exercise. Its basic agenda is

practice, not only in the Seventh-day Adventist Church whose

administrative structures are the focus of attention, but in the wider

Christian context.

When it comes to acknowledgment of those who deserve my

thanks, I am almost overwhelmed as I bring to mind scores of

individuals who have made significant contributions to my thinking on

this subject, and others who have enabled me to pursue the research

for this study. Particularly would I like to pay tribute to friends

and associates in Papua New Guinea, who unassumingly changed my whole

perspective and outlook on life and who put flesh and bones on the

missionary mandate that Christ has given to his church. With their

unselfish devotion to Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit they

have become agents of church growth and revitalization in the Seventh-

day Adventist Church in that country. Adequate structures are

urgently needed which will accommodate and further facilitate the

x
mission of the church in Papua New Guinea and in other similar

situations around the world.

To the South Pacific Division of Seventh-day Adventists and to

Avondale College in Australia I owe a special debt of gratitude for

the financial and moral support which has enabled my family and me to

come to the United States to pursue this study. Thanks is due

particularly to Arthur Ferch and David Currie at the Division Office

for their many years of careful instruction, encouragement, and

friendship; and to Walter Scragg, division president, whose foresight

and vision have enabled him to recognize the priority of a thoroughly

trained, committed ministry in the South Pacific Division. At

Avondale College special thanks is due to Alwyn Salom, chairman of the

theology department, for his encouragement, friendship, support while

this study has been in progress, and many years of careful instruction

on my behalf. In more recent years a great deal of support has been

given by Bryan Ball, Tim Gorle, and other administrative and teaching

personnel at that institution.

At Andrews University and the Seventh-day Adventist

Theological Seminary I would firstly pay tribute to the late Prof.

Garth Thompson, my adviser and department chairman, until his untimely

death in April 1988. He was largely responsible for the inauguration

of the Ph.D. in Christian Ministry at this Seminary. I am the first

graduate from that program. For the many hours of discussion over

details of the course and for his wise counsel and friendship, I will

always remain in his debt.

Special thanks is also due to Russell Staples who assumed the

xi
chairmanship of my dissertation committee on Prof. Thompson's death.

His counsel was both stimulating and well considered. His

encouragement, promptness (despite an extraordinarily full agenda),

and friendship have been highly valued. Thanks is also due to the

other members of the committee--George Knight and Ben Schoun--for

their guidance and friendship, and to the many professors who

stimulated me with their lectures and discussions.

There are numerous others who have been of invaluable

assistance in the process of preparing this document. To give each

the acclamation they deserve is impossible, given the limitations of

this short statement. Therefore, I can only list them and express my

gratitude in this collective manner: Louise Dederen and her staff in

the Seventh-day Adventist Heritage Center at Andrews University; Bill

Fagal and his staff in the Ellen G. White Estate branch office at

Andrews University; Robert Olsen and his staff (particularly Tim

Poirier) at the Ellen G. White Estate offices in Washington, D.C.; Don

Yost and his staff (particularly Bert Haloviak) at the General

Conference Archives in Washington, D.C.; and Joyce Jones, dissertation

secretary at Andrews University, for countless hours of meticulous

proof reading and editorial work.

Finally, for the support of friends, the guidance of Christian

parents who taught me the love of God, and the love and patience of my

wife Julie, and boys, Clayton, Randall, and Brendon, I give thanks to

God who has bountifully given of himself through these dear ones.

xii
 INTRODUCTION

Background for the Study

Between 1888 and 1903 the Seventh-day Adventist Church

reorganized its administrative structures. That process refined a form

of church government which has been designated as "representative.

The reorganized form of representative church government was conceived

in response to the changing needs of the church, particularly those

needs which emerged from its numerical, geographical, and

institutional expansion. The form of organization adopted was

predicated on a model which had been first introduced by A. T.

Robinson in South Africa in 1892. Administrative structures were

further refined and proven successful on a larger scale in Australia

^-Seventh-day Adventist administrative structures have been

termed "representative" in order to distinguish them from episcopal,
papal, presbyterian, or congregational forms of church government.
Although to some extent Seventh-day Adventist organizational
structures were derived from other forms of governance, they were
considered unique by those who, in the early 1860s, defined their form
and thus termed them, in distinction from other forms,
"representative." According to the Church's own definition,
"representative" church government is "the form of church government
which recognizes that authority in the church rests in the church
membership, with executive responsibility delegated to representative
bodies and officers for the governing of the church" (Seventh-day
Adventist Church Manual, rev ed. [Washington, D.C.: General Conference
of Seventh-day Adventists, 1986], 38). The designations "structural
form," "administrative structures," "church structures,"
"organizational structures," and "church government" are used
synonymously in this study to refer to that system of organization
specific to the particular denomination under discussion in the
context.

1
 2

under the leadership of W. C. White and A. G. Daniells, and under the

guidance of Ellen White. Those major initiatives which paved the way

for reorganization arose specifically with reference to the

facilitation of the mission of the church in missionary situations.

Since 1903, the essential features of that reorganized

"representative" form of church government have remained unchanged.

Particularly since the late 1960s, however, the church constituency

has become increasingly vocal in its support of a perceived need to

re-evaluate the effectiveness of the administrative structures of the

denomination. That contention that change is necessary has emerged,

at least in part, from the success of the missionary enterprize of the

church and the consequent internationalization of the constituency

itself.

The response to the call for reassessment has been varied,

however. On the one hand, it appears that some assume that the

administrative structure of the church is sacrosanct. They maintain

that its form is determined by non-negotiable theological

presuppositions and principles that are to be found in the Scriptures

and the writings of Ellen G. White. For them, any attempt to change

the structure may threaten their understanding of the authoritative

nature of Scripture and the writings of Ellen White.

On the other hand, there are those who regard the structure of

the church as a pragmatic response to a specific set of issues

confronted by the church in the late nineteenth century. According to

the proponents of that viewpoint, the administrative structure of the

church is antiquated and thus inadequate to cope with the demands

 3

placed upon it by the multi-lateral needs of the church in the late

twentieth century. The polarity of these two positions and the

interaction of the spectrum of opinion which lies between them has

led, on occasion, to volatile discussion within some sectors of the

church.

The need for re-evaluation has come not only from the church

constituency, however. It is apparent that the need to examine the

reasons for the existence of the denominational structures in their

present form, and any attempt to describe the principles which were

foundational to the acceptance of that form, has emerged in the light

of the church's self-identity and commitment to mission. Emphasis on

the universal dimension of its task has resulted in the establishment

of the denomination in widely diverse sociological and cultural

settings. Although such success was enthusiastically anticipated in

the 1890s, and early twentieth century, the reality of coping with the

multi-cultural and multi-ethnic community that the church's commitment

to mission has created could not have been adequately considered at

that time.

Numerous administrative actions have attempted to respond to

the pressures brought to bear on the denomination's administrative

structures. One such action has been a revision of the definition of

levels of organization as stated in the Church Manual. The current

definition of the levels of denominational structure is documented in

the 1986 edition.^ Another response has been the consolidation of the

^All published editions of the Church Manual since 1932 had

designated "five steps" in the organization: the local church, the
local conference, the union conference, the division, and the General
 4

former "Lay Activities," "Sabbath School," and "Youth" departments

into a single "Church Ministries" department. Church leaders have

been prepared to make some administrative adjustments. However,

crises in financial matters, institutional expansion, and retardation

of missionary expansion call for continuous examination--from a

pragmatic standpoint--of the way the church is structured to do its

work. Careful investigation may suggest the need for more than just

cosmetic change.^

The possibility of reexamination of administrative structures

arises not only from pragmatic considerations, however. If

appropriate modification is to be made, the relationship between an

understanding of the nature of the church, eschatological urgency, the

missionary task of the church, and ecclesiastical structure needs to

be examined. Has the structural form of the Seventh-day Adventist

Church emerged from an ontological understanding of the nature of the

church as, for instance, in papal and episcopal churches? Or did its

task and mission take precedence over theological considerations in

Conference. However, in the 1986 edition only four levels of

organization were recognized. The "division" is described as an
integral part of the General Conference. Some justify this
modification as being a more accurate representation of the intention
of the 1901-1903 reorganization. Others see it as an indication of
movement toward administrative centralization at the very time when
it is claimed that decentralization is necessary. See Church Manual.
1932, 8; and ibid., 1986, 38.

^-Writing in 1985, Walter and Bert Beach apparently failed to

perceive the magnitude of the problem by stating that "we believe this
Seventh-day Adventist Church organization meets today's needs.
Without crisis, in normal operation all problems can be handled and
solved." Walter R. Beach and Bert B. Beach, Pattern for Progress:
The Role and Function of Church Organization (Washington, D.C.: Review
and Herald, 1985), 35.
 5

order that functional church structures which were best suited to the

accomplishment of mission might be established? To what extent were

such pragmatic concerns undergirded by an eschatological vision and

missionary consciousness? In order to find answers to these and other

questions and apply the implications to the contemporary situation,

this study investigates the historical processes and principles which

led to the reorganization of what has been termed "representative"

administrative structure in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

This study does not assume that all the crises and challenges

in the denomination are to be solved by administrative restructuring,

nor even by a shift of emphasis in administration and organization.

Any given specific situation is a complex of intersecting and

interacting components. Organizational form may be just one of those

components, but it is a vital component.

Statement of Purpose

Examination of relevant primary and secondary historical

sources indicates that when reorganization of the Seventh-day

Adventist Church took place, the restructuring of the church was not

significantly guided by a theologically defined ecclesiology. Rather,

it appears that reorganization came about as the practical constraints

of church government were considered in relation to such issues as the

eschatological vision of the church and its developing missionary

consciousness. Therefore, insofar as structure was not determined by,

nor closely bound to, a formally defined ecclesiology, and insofar as

form was redefined in order to accommodate the growth and facilitate

 6

the missionary endeavor of the church, the possibility of modifying

the structure of the church remains, especially in order to meet the

needs that may arise in the discharge of its mission and on account of

the internationalization of the church.

It is a purpose of this dissertation to investigate the

reorganization of the administrative structures of the Seventh-day

Adventist Church by: (1) examining the historical precursors of

reorganization in the years 1888-1903; (2) analyzing the historical

data in order to inductively find those reasons and principles which

culminated in reorganization in 1901-1903; and (3) ascertaining how

those reasons and principles were related to significant factors such

as soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatological vision, and the

missionary consciousness in the church.

A second purpose of this study is to make application of the

findings of the historical research to the continuously changing

situation of the contemporary church. Particular reference is made to

the escalating internationalization of the church and its

constituency.

Delimitations and Scope

This dissertation does not address itself to the need for an

organizational system. That problem was resolved by the church in

anticipation of its initial organization in 1863,1 Presuppositional

^Recently, Andrew Mustard has dealt at length with the

dynamics which contributed initially to the move for organization of
the Seventh-day Adventist Church in "James White and the Development
of Seventh-day Adventist Organization, 1844-1881" (Ph.D. diss.,
Andrews University, 1987.)
 7

to the discussion are the scriptural and sociological imperatives for

some form of organizational structure in the church.

Further, no attempt is made to give a comprehensive historical

account of the events in the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the 1890s

which culminated in reorganization. While generally dealing

chronologically with the historical data, the methodological process

emphasizes the significant operative dynamics and principles during

that period which are relevant to the stated purpose of the

dissertation.

Examination of the historical data largely confines itself to

the period between 1888 and 1903, although it is recognized that

references are made outside the limits of that time frame. The date

1888 has been chosen because sources indicate that discussion

regarding reorganization began to gain momentum at that time. The

year 1903 has been chosen because, apart from the introduction of the

divisional sections of the General Conference and some other minor

changes, the revised structural form voted at the General Conference

session of that year has been the form of organization used by the

church ever since. It should be observed that the reorganization of

the administrative structures of the Seventh-day Adventist Church was

a process, not merely an event. It is not possible to make an

absolute determination of historical boundaries without reference to

those aspects of the process which lie outside those boundaries.

Methodology and Sources

The research methodology of this study relates to the purposes

and design of the study. Three chapters of the historical component

 8

of the research, document historical data relevant to the purposes of

the study. The themes in chapters 4 and 5 are inductively derived

from the historical data. Those two chapters are arranged

thematically rather than chronologically. Special attention is given

in those chapters to the theological basis for reorganization and the

principles from which the reorganized structures of the Seventh-day

Adventist Church were drawn.

Having explained in chapters 4 and 5 the theological basis and

the principles of organization which were determinative of the form

adopted by the denomination in its process of reorganization, chapter

6 applies the findings of the research to the functional and

structural needs of the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The research for this study has been limited largely to

investigation of primary resource documents: personal and

denominational correspondence, journal and magazine articles, diary

entries, minutes and proceedings of committee and board meetings,

stenographic records of General Conference sessions, pamphlets, and

books. Secondary sources are generally quoted only for reference

purposes or where discussion of specific interpretations of historical

events is needed.

Need for the Study and Related Literature

Within the North American Division there has been much

discussion regarding the need for re-evaluation of administrative

structures and practices. At least two union conferences have taken

specific action to alter their constitutions contrary to the advice of

 9

officers of the General Conference. ^ Outside the North American

Division increased pressure is being brought to bear on the General

Conference for modification of administrative structures. It appears

that many church members from other divisions desire an administration

which is more authentically representative of the world-wide

constituency of the church. This strong desire was evidenced at the

General Conference session at New Orleans in 1985 when some of the

delegates, particularly from Africa, spoke to the problem with

considerable conviction.^

Their concern may have arisen for many reasons. For instance,

they may have perceived that the missionary function of the church was

being retarded by institutionalization and centralization. If such is

still the case, the church should act to ensure that its structures

protect and enhance the initiative and selfhood of the younger

churches within the context of a global, interdependent, responsible

Seventh-day Adventist Church.-^ Alternatively, the African delegates

may have observed that the structures of the Seventh-day Adventist

■'■The two Unions involved were the North Pacific Union and the
Pacific Union.

■‘See "African Delegates Make Themselves Heard at General

Conference Session," Visitor. 1 August 1985, 6.

^The term "younger churches" is used to refer to those

churches which are located in areas which were formerly designated
"mission fields" in distinction from churches in the "homelands."
This designation is used in order to avoid any implication that there
should continue to be "homelands" and "mission fields" in the
contemporary Seventh-day Adventist perspective on world mission.
Rather, mission should be understood in terms which reflect the
interchange of ideas and persons between all Christians from all
cultures and societies in the world. The motto "from everywhere to
everywhere" is appropriate for just such an enterprize.
 10

Church do not easily facilitate the incarnation of the church and its

message in many cultural and sociological environments. Rather, they

more often contribute to the isolation of the church and its members

from their specific heritage and community, and thus inhibit

missionary expansion. Such a situation is perilous for a church which

accepts the gospel commission seriously and, unless adjusted, will

continue to work contrary to the evangelistic purposes of the church

and its ministry.

A comprehensive investigation of the dynamics and principles

which contributed to reorganization in 1901-1903 has not yet been

undertaken. There is an increasing body of literature, both on the

subject of the organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and on

the historical milieu of the 1890s. But primary documentary research

into the reasons for reorganization in 1901-1903 and discussion of the

principles controlling the form of the outcome has not been done. In

his recently completed dissertation on Adventist organization from

1844 through 1881, Andrew Mustard stated that "a definitive history of

the development of church organization during the 1880s and 1890s and

of the pivotal 1901 General Conference has yet to be written.

Apart from Mustard's work, other recent studies relevant to

this dissertation are P. Gerard Damsteegt's Foundations of the

Seventh-dav Adventist Message and Mission, which is largely confined

to a discussion of the development of Seventh-day Adventist doctrine

^-Mustard, "James White and Organization," 273.

 IX
and missionary outreach to the period up to 1874;*- Richard Schwarz's

Light Bearers to the Remnant, a college-level text book on Seventh-day

Adventist denominational history;^ Schwarz's chapter "The Perils of

Growth," in which he briefly treats the reorganization of the church

in 1901-1903;-* George Knight's From 1888 to Apostasy; The Case of A.

T. Jones, in which the author examines the reshaping of denominational

organization in one chapter in the context of a biographical account

of J o n e s a n d a recent unpublished paper prepared for the Seventh-day

Adventist Theological Seminary by Erich Baumgartner, "Church Growth

and Church Structure: 1901 Reorganization in the Light of the

Expanding Missionary Enterprize of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Earlier studies were Gilbert Jorgensen's M.A. thesis for the

Seventh-day Adventist Seminary in 1949,** and Carl D. Anderson's Ph.D.

*-P. Gerard Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-dav Adventist

Message and Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).

‘'•Richard Schwarz, Light Bearers to the Remnant (Boise, Idaho:

Pacific Press, 1979).

■*Idem, "The Perils of Growth," in Adventism in America, ed.

Gary Land (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 95-138.

^George R. Knight, From 1888 to Apostasy: The Case of A. T.

Jones (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1987).

-*Erich Baumgartner, "Church Growth and Church Structure: 1901

Reorganization in the Light of the Expanding Missionary Enterprize of
the Seventh-day Adventist Church" (term paper prepared for Andrews
University, June 1987).

^Gilbert Jorgensen, "An 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, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1949.)
 12

dissertation in 1960.1 while these studies have contributed

significantly to our understanding of the process of reorganization,

both studies were restricted by the limited availability of primary

sources. Organized archives are now housed at the General Conference

headquarters in Washington, D.C.; the Ellen G. White Estate Offices

also in Washington, D.C., and on the campus of Andrews University; and

in the Adventist Heritage Center in the James White Library, Andrews

University.

In addition, many other articles and books have been written

on the subject of church government in the Seventh-day Adventist

Church. All are limited, however, by their concise treatment of the

process and nature of reorganization, by their commitment to other

agendas, or by their failure to utilize adequately the primary

resources that are now available.^

Since the late 1960s concern for church organizational

structure has been indicated by numerous articles in the Adventist

Review. Ministry. Spectrum, and in the many departmental and union

conference journals and magazines published by the church. Further,

conferences and seminars--such as the Theological Consultation at

^Carl D. Anderson, "The History and Evolution of Seventh-day

Adventist Church Organization" (Ph.D. diss., American University,
1960.)

^For example, see Arthur W. Spalding, Origin and History of

Seventh-dav Adventists. 4 vols (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald,
1961-1962), 2:263-371, 3:1-115; A. V. Olson, Through Crisis to
Victory (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1966); Arthur L. White,
Ellen G, White: The Australian Years. 1891-1900 (Washington, D.C.:
Review and Herald, 1983); and idem, Ellen G. White: The Early
Elmshaven Years. 1901-1905 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald,
1981).
 13

Glacier View, Colorado, in 1980, and reports and minutes of

constituency sessions--have provided insight into the organizational

perspectives of administrators, theologians, and church members.

 CHAPTER I

THE NEED FOR REORGANIZATION IN THE CONTEXT

OF THE EXPANDING MISSIONARY ENTERPRIZE

OF THE CHURCH

Introduction

The principles which have determined the structure of the

Seventh-day Adventist Church demand scrutiny and evaluation. To that

end, subsequent chapters of this study document data relevant to the

process of reorganization, investigate the reasons for the

reorganization of the administrative structures of the denomination

during the years 1901-1903, and identify some of the principles by

which that process and its outcome were ordered. This chapter briefly

alludes to some non-denominational contextual factors, and to

significant developments within the denomination which relate to the

investigation.

Specifically, the focus of attention in this chapter is on the

widespread missionary enthusiasm and expansion which characterized

American Protestantism, including the Seventh-day Adventist Church, at

the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth

century. In that setting, the chapter describes the administrative

structures which were used by the Seventh-day Adventist Church until

1901. Those structures were not designed to cope with the success of

14
 15

the missionary enterprize of the church. By 1901 new structures which

could accommodate and facilitate the growth of the church were needed.

That need for reorganization and the new administrative structures

which grew out of it are best understood in the setting of the

missionary expansion of the church, both in its larger context outside

the denomination, and in its more narrow context within the

denomination.

In contrast to the research methodology that is employed in

the rest of the study, few primary resources are used in the earlier

portions of this chapter. Here, the documentation is largely indebted

to the work of other historians who have investigated events of the

late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Two additional delimitations are necessary for this chapter.

First, only those contextual factors which are considered to have

specific relationship to significant developments in the process of

reorganization of the administrative structures of the Seventh-day

Adventist Church have been included. Second, because the Seventh-day

Adventist Church was founded in the United States, the discussion of

the national and denominational context is confined largely to that

country. Sociological, political, organizational, cultural, and to a

large extent, theological factors which informed the process of

reorganization were born in a North American context.

Serious discussion of historical events and processes

considers both the event itself and its context. No given historical

occurrence can be understood if it is divorced from its context.

Likewise, no principle has continuing normative value and contemporary

 16

application unless it has been evaluated in its historical context and

reinterpreted in the light of its value and applicability for the

present.

Global Context: Colonialism and Mission

The end of the nineteenth century had seen four centuries of

European-based expansionism, imperialism, and colonialism. In the

sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it had been the Spanish, the

Portuguese, and the French who had been the more active colonialists.

Hand in hand with the realization of their political expansionism had

gone a rapid escalation of missionary activity by the Roman Catholic

Church.

By the beginning of the nineteenth century, however,

Protestant European powers were gaining the ascendancy. By that time

the English, the Dutch, and the Germans had established colonial

outposts world-wide. Again, political expansionism facilitated the

development of the missionary cause, but it was the Protestant

missionary movement which was then riding the crest of the colonial

wave.

In the eighteenth century the colonial status of British North

America effectively precluded any significant expansionist ambition on

its part. With the passage of time in the nineteenth century,

however, it became apparent that the global influence of the United

States was on the rise. Whereas the pattern of European colonization

was one of political and military domination, followed or accompanied

by Christianizing pressures, American authority was established more

on ideological and economic grounds. Outside North America, American

 17

influence was established not so much by a territorially confined

colonialism as it was by an ideological and economic imperialism which

impacted upon diverse political, economic, and social structures.^

National Context: Nationalism and Mission

The post-bellum years were years of phenomenal change in the

United States. With reconstruction came rapid industrialization,

urbanization, and social stratification. Increasingly, the American

city was becoming the home of immigrants whose social and cultural

patterns were very different from those of rural, Protestant, Anglo-

saxon Americans. Earlier, most immigrants to the United States had

come from northern and western Europe. By the end of the nineteenth

century, however, the majority of immigrants were arriving from

southern and eastern Europe. Whereas previously the typical immigrant

was Protestant, now more immigrants were Catholic, Eastern Orthodox,

or Jewish. People were becoming more aware of social, cultural, and

religious diversity, but more often than not, that awareness did not

result in accommodation but in confrontation as diverse social and

cultural classes sought to establish their identity.

Other major factors which exacerbated instability in the last

decade of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century were:

1. The fluctuation of economic fortunes. In 1893 recession hit the

country, and much of the world. In poverty, thousands left their

farms to seek employment and opportunity in the cities.

^It should be pointed out that the United States did exercise
control over the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and some other
islands after the Spanish-American War.

A
 18

2. The rise of a broad-based prohibition sentiment.

3. The more pragmatic education which was being advocated in contrast

to the scholastic education offered by European educational

institutions.

4. The wide-spread populist movement as a political force.

5. Continuing tensions between whites and blacks.

These and other changes in American society were accompanied

by a strong nationalistic fervor. Throughout the nineteenth century a

sense of manifest destiny had permeated American religion and society.

But by the end of the century that sense of destiny had become

strongly ethnocentric in orientation. Despite local cultural and

religious diversification, white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant social and

cultural values were regarded as the norm for everyone. Even the

pattern of government which had been established in the United States

was considered by many to be the ideal pattern for all peoples in all

places. Americans had few doubts about their political mission to the

world.1

^Josiah Strong was perhaps the most notable example of those

who advocated a transference of an Anglo-Saxon value system and
lifestyle as the best way to Christianize other cultures. Henry
Bowden has observed that Strong "had no difficulty in identifying
Christianity with American (occasionally British) customs and then
championing that amalgam as the one viable culture for anyone wishing
to live effectively in the modern world" (Henry W. Bowden, "An
Overview of Cultural Factors in the American Protestant Missionary
Enterprise," in American Missions in Bicentennial Perspective, ed. R.
Pierce Beaver [Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1977], 51).
Andrew Happer expressed the hope that all the world would one day be
as pleasant and attractive as a New England village, a Scottish
hamlet, or the German countryside. See Andrew P. Happer, The_
Missionary Enterprise: Its Success in Other Lands and the Assurance
of Its Success in China (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission
Press, 1880), 2. William Hutchison has traced the rise and fall of
American imperialism. He claimed that in the nineteenth century,
 19

Religious Context: The Gospel and Mission

Missionary Consciousness and Expansion

The gospel of Christian civilization had become a powerful

force in America and its mission at the turn of the century. But

there was much more to the missionary enterprize of American

Protestantism than a civilizing ideology or veiled political

expansionism. While momentous theological and ideological

developments were taking place in the United States itself, there was

a sense of urgency and expectation about the world-wide mission of the

church that to a large extent transcended theological and ideological

controversy and polarization.^

When the first World Missionary Conference was held in

Edinburgh in 1910, more than 1,200 participants reflected with a great

nationalistic fervor corresponded to the pattern of religious

revivalism and missionary enthusiasm in the country. He contended
that the pinnacle of American imperialism coincided with the great
missionary thrust at the end of the nineteenth century and the early
twentieth century. While Hutchison has admirably drawn attention to
an often-neglected aspect of the American missionary enterprize, it
should be pointed out that there was much more to missionary
motivation at the turn of the century and the early years of the
twentieth century than political and civilizing ambition. Hutchison
failed to give adequate attention to factors other than those on his
own agenda. William Hutchison, Errand to the World: American
Protestant Thought and Foreign Missions (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1987). See also Gerald H. Anderson, "American
Protestants in Pursuit of Mission: 1886-1986," International Bulletin
of Missionary Research 12 (July 1988): 98-118.

^-Developments occurring at the time included: (1) the growing

influence of liberalism and a polarization of liberals and
conservatives which was to become acrimonious in the liberalism-
fundamentalism debates in the 1920s and 1930s; (2) the rise of the
social gospel movement within liberalism; (3) the demise of the
Holiness movement and the rise of the Pentecostal movement within
conservatism; and (4) the increasing preference for pre-millennialist
eschatology over post-millennialism within both conservatism and
liberalism, but particularly within conservatism.
 20

deal of satisfaction on events which had transpired in the century

that had passed. Comparison between the global presence of

Christianity in 1810 and 1910 seemed to justify the optimistic

expectation that world evangelization was attainable in the very near

future.1

In retrospect, the first quarter of the nineteenth century did

not seem to have held the promise of the dramatic developments that

were to follow. While it is true that the Second Great Awakening was

in full swing in the United States at the time, it is also true that

the revival was primarily introverted, and the sense of mission that

was aroused was applied first to the needs of the indigenous peoples

of North America. Nevertheless, some missionaries were sent to non-

European lands. Their dispatch may not have been motivated by a

particularly strong commitment to the destiny of God's American people

as agents of world evangelization, but it was a beginning.

In 1810 the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign

^-Stephen Neill lists twelve achievements of the nineteenth

century considered significant by the participants at Edinburgh: (1)
Missionaries had been able to find a footing in every part of the
known world, (2) much pioneer Bible translation work had been
completed, (3) tropical medicine had made longer missionary tenure
viable, (4) every religion in the world had yielded some converts to
Christianity as a result of missionary preaching, (5) no race was
deemed to be incapable of understanding the gospel, (6) indigenous
Christians were working alongside the missionary, (7) leaders were
emerging from the younger churches, (8) support for missions was
greater than ever, (9) financial support had kept pace with the rapid
expansion of the missionary enterprise, (10) educational institutions
were producing men and women of the highest caliber for missionary
work, (11) Christian influence had spread far beyond the ranks of
those who had actually accepted the gospel, (12) intransigent
opposition to the gospel seemed to have finally given way to more
ready acceptance in many areas of the world. Stephen Neill, A History
of Christian Missions (New York: Penguin Books, 1964), 394-95. See
also Anderson, "American Protestants in Pursuit of Mission," 102.
 21

Missions was founded. It was the first and, for half a century, the

largest North American agency to send workers abroad. Although it

operated independently of denominational structures, it was dominated

by Massachusetts Congregationalists. It was best represented by its

most distinguished secretary--Rufus Anderson. Soon other "boards"

with denominational titles and backing were brought into existence,

but the American Board was to remain the dominant force in the

American missionary enterprise until the 1860s, when the

denominational mission bodies began to exert a greater influence. By

that time the global missionary campaign had gained the momentum which

was a powerful force in North American religious life, and which, as

it developed, was to be regarded with such satisfaction at Edinburgh.^

The Activist Style of

American Mission

From the beginning an activist style had been characteristic

of American mission. Activism in missionary endeavor bore a direct

relationship with the pattern of revivalism and conservativism that

had swept the American religious scene earlier in the nineteenth

^Some twenty-four American agencies for mission-evangelism and

Bible distribution were founded between 1810 and 1870. Approximately
2,000 Americans served overseas during that period as missionaries,
lay assistants, miscellaneous workers (who, according to Anderson, did
not qualify as missionaries in his strict definition of the term), and
wives (who also were not yet listed as missionaries). The American
Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mission together with the Northern
Baptist, Presbyterian, and Methodist Boards accounted for some 80
percent of the missionary activity of North American churches. Among
these, the American Board remained the most significant in terms of
workers and financial assets right through the end of the 1860s. For
additional statistical data relative to the destinations of the
missionaries who were being dispatched by the boards, see Hutchison,
Errand to the World. 45.
 22

century. As the proportion of American missionaries increased in

comparison to continental missionaries, the continental responses to

the powerful Anglo-American presence were undergirded by deeply

ingrained perceptions of the activistic nature of American religion.^

Phillip Schaff, a Swiss theologian and historian who had emigrated to

the United States, analyzed for a German audience the advantages and

disadvantages of the activist style. He described the religious style

of the Americans as being "uncommonly practical, energetic, and

enterprising," while, in contrast, the entire continent of Europe was

suffering from a dearth of enthusiasm. In the various synods and

conventions of the churches in the United States, he noted an unusual

amount of oratorical power which was combined with a talent for

organization and government. Schaff acknowledged, however, that the

activist style had both "corresponding faults and infirmities." He

wrote that American Christianity

. . . is more Petrine than Johannean; more like busy Martha than

like the pensive Mary, sitting at the feet of Jesus. It expands
more in breadth than in depth. It is often carried on like a
secular business, and in a mechanical or utilitarian spirit. It
lacks the beautiful enamel of deep fervor and heartiness, the true
mysticism, an appreciation of history and the church; it wants a
substratum of profound and spiritual theology; and under the mask
of orthodoxy it not infrequently conceals, without intending or
knowing it, the tendency to abstract intellectualism and

1-The increasing proportion of American missionaries during the

last half of the nineteenth century can be ascertained with reference
to Rufus Anderson, Foreign Missions. Their Relations and Claims (New
York: Scribner, 1869), 342-45; James S. Dennis, ed., Centennial Survey
of Foreign Missions (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1902), 9-48; James
S. Dennis, Harlan P. Beach, and Charles H. Fahs, eds., World Atlas of
Christian Missions (New York: Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign
Missions, 1911), 81-102. By 1900 Americans outnumbered continental
missionaries by a margin of two to one, and by 1910 they had overtaken
the British both in financing and in the number of missionaries in the
field.
 23

superficial rationalism. This is especially evident in the

doctrine of the church and the sacraments, and in the meagerness
of the worship . . . [where] nothing is left but preaching, free
prayer, and singing.^

In concert with characteristic American religious activism,

Seventh-day Adventists were more interested in a practical religion

than in theological or theoretical reflection. The optimistic

expectancy of fulfilling the world-wide missionary challenge demanded

action rather than contemplation, research, or writing.^

A Penchant for Numerics

The activistic style in mission was accompanied by a penchant

for numerics. The success of the missionary enterprise was

quantified, and, although it is not true to say that there was no

qualitative concern, American mission boards strongly tended to

evaluate their enterprise in terms of statistics. For instance, in

1900 Robert Speer estimated that there were 1.5 million converts in

the areas to which missionaries had been sent. Approximately 800,000

more had been added by 1910. For promotional purposes these figures

were made to sound impressive.^ But, in fact, they were exceedingly

meager when set against total populations. K. S. Latourette, an

1Phillip Schaff, America (New York: Scribner, 1855; reprint,

ed. Perry Miller [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961]),
94-95.

^See Emmet K. Vande Vere, "Years of Expansion, 1865-1885," in

Adventism in America, ed. Gary Land (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 72.

^Robert E. Speer, Missionary Principles and Practice: A

Discussion of Christian Missions and Some Criticisms upon Them (New
York: Fleming H. Revell, 1902), 501; Dennis, Centennial Survey. 263;
Dennis et al, Atlas of Missions. 83; John R. Mott, The Evangelization
of the World in This Generation (New York: Student Volunteer Movement
of Foreign Missions, 1905), 102.
 24

eminent historian of Christian mission, observed in 1936:

In none of the major areas to which missionaries have gone do the

younger churches include more than one percent of the population.
In some limited areas the proportion is much larger. In most
lands it is smaller.^

In order to explain such an undesirable situation, the leading

spokespersons for the missionary enterprize explained that

"evangelization," according to the New Testament, had never implied

huge numbers of accessions to the faith.^ With the very next breath,

however, some apologists for mission were just as likely to "'refer

the questioner to the Sandwich Islands’--to change the subject and

talk about s u c c e s s e s . I n 1902 Speer wanted it to be well understood

that he disliked "enumerations." He thought, however, that he should

offer a few statistics in order to "be rid of them once and for all."

So he proceeded to recount a total of 558 missionary societies

(American and European), 7,319 mission stations, 14,364 churches, 94

colleges and universities, 20,458 schools, 379 hospitals, 782

dispensaries, 152 publishing houses, 452 translations of the Bible,

and "sixty-four ships belonging exclusively to Christ!"^ An

impressive list from one supposedly not too interested in adding up

statistics.

•*-K. S. Latourette, Missions Tomorrow (New York: Harper and

Bros, 1936), 94-95.

^Mott, Evangelization of the World. 7-10. Nevertheless Mott

indicated (chapter 5) that leaders cared a great deal about conversion
statistics; both past and prospective.

^Ibid., in Hutchison, Errand to the World. 100. I am indebted

to Hutchison for drawing my attention to much of the data in this
section of the dissertation.

^Speer, Missionary Principles. 501-2.

 25

Mission Theory

The available statistics did, however, reflect the emergence

of amazing growth and vitality in the whole missionary enterprise.

Charles Forman has suggested that while there had been a gradual

development of missionary consciousness and endeavor throughout the

nineteenth century, it was the rapid development during the 1890s and

early twentieth century that was most striking. According to Forman,

"about 1890 the climate of opinion changed markedly and from then to

1918, in what may be called the heyday of American missions, there was

a burst of new ideas and an enormously increased quantity of

literature expressing those ideas."'- The time period that Forman has

delineated for the upsurge in the Protestant missionary enterprize as

a whole corresponds almost identically with the great missionary

movement in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Structural

reorganization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church took place in 1901-

1903. That date was approximately the mid-point of the period.

Forman pointed out that despite the new ideas and attention to

theoretical and theological issues, America's mission theory was not

able to attract as much attention as America's mission work.

Nevertheless, between 1890 and 1918 more than forty works on the

theory of missions were published in the United States in contrast to

the six that had been written in the preceding eighty years of the

missionary movement. Most of these newer works originated from male,

mainline Protestant sources, and consisted primarily of lecture series

•'-Charles W. Forman, "A History of Foreign Mission Theory in

America," in American Missions in Bicentennial Perspective, ed. R.
Pierce Beaver (Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1977), 70.
 26

prepared for scholarly and academic audiences.3

Consideration of American mission theory should include

reference to two innovators in American mission policy who were to be

found among the practitioners of the time rather than among the

scholars. Bishop William Taylor, a Methodist, advocated the rapid and

wide expansion of the missionary enterprise. He expected the

missionary to be largely self-supporting. Forman observed that "this

method paid little attention to the steady, concentrated building up

of the local church but it fitted in well with the Methodist

disposition during the latter part of the nineteenth century for

rapidly expanding, minimally supported work."^ Seventh-day

Adventists, like Methodists were attempting to expand rapidly while

offering their missionaries minimal support.

Forman also observed that Bishop Taylor's views did not

survive as long as he did.3 However, he may have failed to anticipate

the recent re-emergence of Taylor's view in the form of the

increasingly popular "tent-making ministry" concept.^

On the other hand, John Nevius, a Presbyterian in Korea,

defended the need for strengthening the local, indigenous church and

its leadership. He believed that there should be no serving

3Ibid., 80-81; Hutchison, Errand to the World. 127.

2Forman, "History of Mission Theory," 90.

3Ibid., 89-90.

^See Ruth Siemens, "Secular Options for Missionary Work," in

Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader, eds., Ralph D.
Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne (Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey
Library, 1981), 770-74; Tetsunao Yamamori, God's New Envoys (Portland,
Ore.: Multnomah Press, 1987).
 27

institutions in a given community other than those which the local

church could adequately maintain. The work of mission was to train

local leaders and prepare the church for autonomy. Some, other than

Nevius himself, adopted the position that the mission should pay the

indigenous worker until the local church was able to fully support its

indigenous people. Forman observed that this modified version of

Nevius's view together with a very "un-Nevius-like" proliferation of

foreign-serving institutions proved to have great survival power in

American missions.

Seventh-day Adventist missions were not particularly adept at

promoting autonomy. Even in the early years of the twentieth century

their missionary methodology was based on the institutional or

"mission station" approach. Insufficient attention was given to the

selfhood of the younger churches and the development of indigenous

leadership.

Motivation for Mission

Along with the increase in scholarly attention to mission

theory went a development in motivational emphasis. At the time when

the North American missionary enterprise had been establishing itself,

its Puritan and Calvinist roots revealed a concern for the glory of

God as a missionary motivation. As time proceeded, however, the

command of Christ and love for Christ became the primary motivators.

■*-For a brief discussion of Seventh-day Adventist mission

methodology at the beginning of the twentieth century see Borge
Schantz, "The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Thought:
Contemporary Appraisal," 2 vols. (Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological
Seminary, 1983), 326-32.
 28

Forman explained that "sometimes these were expressed with a heavier

emphasis on the element of love and sometimes with a heavier emphasis

on the command." He contended that "on occasion, particularly in the

later period between 1890 and 1918, the treatment of Christ's command

was explicitly in terms of unquestioning duty or military obedience."

"The Victorian glorification of duty," he added, "evidently had its

effect on missionary motivation." ^

At the end of the nineteenth century conservatives were being

influenced by liberals who were emphasizing the motive of compassion

for the world. Unlike liberals, however, the conservatives made

reference to each motive--love for Christ, obedience to Christ, and

compassion for the world--in their missionary literature. Unless the

three were held in balance, "obedience without love would be

desiccated, love without obedience would be sentimental and either of

them without a compassion for people would divert attention from the

persons served to the act of serving.

The serving motivation was reflected in the flourishing of a

great number of auxiliary institutions. It has been argued that such

were the direct result of the civilizing ambitions of the missionary

movement. More correctly it should be confessed that it is

exceedingly difficult to separate a serving motivation from civilizing

ambitions. Be that as it may, approximately 100 colleges or

universities and 1,200 medical institutions had arisen out of nowhere

^■Forman, "History of Mission Theory," 74-75. See also

Anderson, "American Protestants in Pursuit of Mission," 98.

^Forman, "History of Mission Theory," 74-75.

 29

in a matter of only thirty years. Robert Speer, although overdrawing

the picture slightly, recalled in 1928 that as recently as the 1870s

there had been "no great conspicuous institutions such as hospitals

and colleges."1

Laypersons and Mission

Concurrent with the appearance of an institutional methodology

in mission at the turn of the century was an upsurge in lay

participation, particularly the involvement of women. Between 1868

and 1910 the proportion of laypersons in the missionary force

(American and European) rose from 52 percent to 70 percent. Since

women were the dominant lay workers at both dates, the proportional

change reflected an increased female presence. In 1910, in fact, a

statistically typical group of 100 missionaries comprised "thirty

ordained men, twelve laymen engaged in nonmedical work, five

physicians (including one woman and one of the ordained men), and

fifty five" female workers (women who were spouses of men in other

categories were not counted as missionaries).^

The Student Volunteer

Movement and Mission

One cannot properly discuss American mission at the turn of

the century, nor the composition and dedication of the missionary band

^Robert E. Speer, "A Few Comparisons of Then and Now,"

Missionary Review of the World 51 (January 1928): 7. Seventh-day
Adventists had founded a medical institution at Battle Creek (Battle
Creek Sanitarium) in 1866 and a major educational institution (Battle
Creek College) in 1874.

^Hutchison, Errand to the World. 100. See also Anderson,

"American Protestants in Pursuit of Mission, 102-3.
 30

itself, without reference to the Student Volunteer Movement For

Foreign Missions, its influential leaders, and the watchword which

expressed the aim of a whole generation of American missionaries. The

Student Volunteer Movement was founded in a year which has come to

have great significance for Seventh-day Adventists--1888. Numerous

references to the movement, its leaders, conventions, and watchword

are found scattered through Seventh-day Adventist denominational

literature and committee minutes between 1889 and 1903. In 1893, for

example, it was voted that the General Conference Secretary should

attend the second convention of the movement.^ In 1891 Uriah Smith's

son Leon, who, although not listed among the official delegates, was

^FMB Pro, 17 December 1893, RG 48, GCAr. Other references to

the Student Volunteer Movement in Seventh-day Adventist literature and
board actions between 1889 and 1903 were (in chronological order): M.
L. Huntley, "The Student Missionary Uprising," RH, 17 December 1889,
790-91; [J. 0. Corliss], "International Convention of the Student
Volunteer Movement," RH, 17 February 1891, 102; Percy T. Magan,
"Convention of the Student Volunteer Movement," RH, 10 March 1891,
150; Leon A. Smith, "The World's Convention of Student Volunteers for
Foreign Missions," RH, 17 March 1891, 168-69; FMB Pro, 29 April 1891,
RG 48, GCAr; 0. A. Olsen, "Report of the General Conference Committee
Meetings from March 11-21, 1892," RH, 26 April 1892, 266; F. M.
Wilcox, "Convention of the Student Volunteer Movement," RH, 20
February 1894, 128; FMB Pro, 5 December 1897, RG 48, GCAr; IMMBA Min,
5 February 1898, RG 77, GCAr; W. E. Cornell, "The Volunteer
Convention," RH, 15 March 1898, 174-75; Estella Houser, "The Student
Volunteer Convention in Toronto," RH, 11 March 1902, 155. For record
of the Seventh-day Adventist delegates attending the conventions of
the Student Volunteer Movement see, for example, Student Mission
Power: Report of the First International Convention of the Student
Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions (New York: Student Volunteer
Movement for Foreign Missions, 1891; reprint, Pasadena Calif.: William
Carey Library, 1979), 198; World-Wide Evangelization the Urgent
Business of the Church: Addresses Delivered before the Fourth
International Convention of the Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign
Missions Toronto. Canada. February 26-March 2. 1902 (New York:
Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions, 1902), 647. The
delegates are listed under the institutions they represent, state by
state.
 31

obviously at the first Student Volunteer convention at Cleveland,

Ohio, in that year enthusiastically recommended:

It is hardly necessary to add that the Student Volunteer

Movement is one which merits the full sympathy and co-operation of
Seventh-day Adventists. Unselfish, unsectarian (so far as
concerns Protestant sects), animated by a pure zeal and devotion
to the cause of Christ, and seeking only to bring the sound of his
gospel to the millions whose ears it has never reached, it is a
part of the great gospel work which God is doing for the world in
this last generation of its history, and in which it has pleased
him to assign us so wonderful a part.^

Again in 1898, Seventh-day Adventists were admonished not to hold

themselves "aloof from" the student movement.^

The two most influential leaders to emerge from the Student

Volunteer Movement were John R. Mott and Robert E. Speer. Both were

able administrators, and both wrote extensively--Speer being the more

prolific of the two. Mott's particular strength was his ability to

see mission in its world-wide perspective and promote the formation of

strategies which would optimize the potential that was being created

by the Holy Spirit. As such he was one of the first to place emphasis

on strategic planning for the world as a whole. His idea was to

develop a comity arrangement whereby each mission agency would be

responsible for specific unreached regions and classes of people.

Speer was a systematic thinker whose strength lay in mediation

and clarification of all sides of a particular issue or task to be

performed. He gave a good deal of attention to the needs of the young

national church, its right to organize in its own way, its

^Leon Smith, "The World's Convention of Student Volunteers,"

169.

^Cornell, "The Volunteer Convention," 175.

 32

responsibility for evangelization in its own sphere, and its ability

to express its faith according to its own cultural setting without

domination or intimidation from the West. He wanted the younger

churches to be self-administering and in control of their own

financial resources.^

The Watchword of the Student

Volunteer Movement

Both Mott and Speer were staunch defenders of the watchword of

the Student Volunteer Movement: "The evangelization of the world in

this generation." Mott asserted in 1902 that the watchword had "in

the case of a large and increasing number of Christians . . . enlarged

vision, strengthened purpose, augmented faith, inspired hopefulness,

intensified zeal, driven to God in prayer, and developed the spirit of

heroism and self-sacrifice. Nevertheless, the watchword was not so

well appreciated by all, and it received continuous and sometimes

vitriolic criticism.

Some maintained that the watchword was too closely tied to

premillennial views and was therefore inappropriate for the missionary

enterprise as a whole.^ Others charged that it did not do justice to

^-Robert E. Speer, Missionary Principles and Practice. 59, 63-

64; idem, Christianity and the Nations (New York: Fleming H. Revell
Company, 1910), 73-76, 113-76; idem, The Gospel and the New World (New
York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1919), 203-24.

^John R. Mott, Addresses and Papers of John R. Mott. 6 vols.

(New York: Association Press, 1946-1947), 1:82; quoted in C. Howard
Hopkins, John R. Mott. 1865-1955: A Biography (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1979), 232.

^Edward A. Lawrence, Modern Missions in the East: Their

Methods. Successes and Limitations (New York: Harper and Brothers,
1895), 35-36.
 ASIfl ResearchCantorUbrary

33

Jesus's commission to make disciples. Making disciples involved

baptizing, organizing, instructing, edifying, and a whole host of

other tasks which better fitted a mission policy directed towards

organizing churches, developing a competent indigenous ministry, and

encouraging responsibility and self-propagation.^

While such objections were not sufficient to discredit the

popularity of the slogan, they did serve to call attention to what

Hutchison has called "ambiguities" in the watchword's key term,

"evangelization." In response, Robert Speer insisted before a Student

Volunteer Assembly in 1898 that "we do not predict that the world is

to be evangelized in this generation," but in the same speech he

reported statistics which would easily lead the listener to "begin to

feel that perhaps the evangelization of the world in this generation

may not, after all, be such a dream.

Others tried to explain away the apparent demand of the slogan

by claiming that "evangelizing," in fact, meant "contacting" potential

Christians and exposing them to the gospel. But when results were

being reported, no-one seemed satisfied merely with statistics of

contact. Both practitioners and supporters of mission were not at all

indifferent to results expressed in terms of conversions.^

^-Chalmers Martin, Apostolic and Modern Missions (New York:

Fleming H. Revell Company, 1898), 52-63.

^Robert E. Speer, "The Watchword of the Movement: The

Evangelization of the World in This Generation," in The Student
Missionary Appeal: Addresses at the Third International Convention of
the Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions. Held at
Cleveland. Ohio. February 23-27. 1898 (New York: Student Volunteer
Movement for Foreign Missions, 1898), 210.

^See Hutchison, Errand to the World. 19.

 v » ix jU y O rm O $ k n v * 9 tft

?!■■***^RtbitSrmv^.HiaanmdltwOlean*®
34

The watchword of the Student Volunteer Movement was of vital

interest to Seventh-day Adventists--so much so that when a department

which was designed to cater to the needs of youth was formed by the

General Conference in 1907, they adopted it and adapted it to their

particular perspective. The "aim" of the "Missionary Volunteer

society"--the formal name given to youth-oriented societies within

local congregations--was "The Advent message to all the world in this

generation.

Denominational Structures

Not only was the latter half of the nineteenth century and

early twentieth century a time of rapid growth for the missionary

enterprize, but it was also a time of structural change for many

denominations in the United States. New denominations were being

spawned and old denominations were being realigned. William Swatos

has pointed out that many denominations were caught up in an attempt

to implement the principles of the "progressive, scientific world

view" that was beginning to dominate the culture. Referring to the

principles themselves, he said:

Efficiency was one such principle, and the organizational

manifestation of this was bureaucracy. Thus the denominations
developed national staffs, headquarters, programs, and so forth,
far beyond the reach of local constituents. With the shift from a
rural home-farm, productive-consumptive society to an urban

■*-The watchword was not the only thing that Seventh-day

Adventists "borrowed" from the Student Volunteer Movement. In 1908
the "Morning Watch" was introduced to the "Young People's" societies.
That had also originated with the Student Volunteer Movement. See
Cornell, "The Volunteer Convention," 175. Also, the name given to
the youth organization--"the Missionary Volunteer society"--was most
likely derived from the name "Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign
Missions.11
 35

bureau-technical one, the traditional denominations, as religious

organizations in conformity with their socio-cultural
environments, developed into large trans-local, non-profit
corporations.^

Despite some innovation and experimentation, most structural

forms were variants of one of the three basic categories of church

government or polity: episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational.

Some denominations selected specific elements from each of the

categories and incorporated them within the structural form which met

their specific needs. All denominations attempted, to a greater or

lesser degree, to find a structural form which was theologically-based

and pragmatically feasible. Therefore, the chosen form was usually a

function of theological rationale, liturgical processes, the need for

office and authority in the church, the decision-making processes, and

in many cases, an attempt to facilitate missionary expansion.^

Episcopal Forms of
Church Government

Episcopal church order was an early form of church government

that has been practiced in many Christian denominations. In Episcopal

churches the chief ministers were bishops. Subordinate ministers were

•'■William H. Swatos, Jr., "Beyond Denominationalism:

Community and Culture in American Religion," Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 20 (1981): 223. Swatos continued: "To a
considerable extent, this approach remains intact at the present time
and reflects one important characteristic of modern society--complex
organization. But it fails to recognize the importance of localism in
maintaining voluntary organizations. . . . While the state continues
to enlarge despite all pretensions to the contrary, denominational
religiosity is in a tailspin" (ibid., 224).
O
For consideration of four denominational systems;
Presbyterian, Episcopal, Baptist, and Methodist, and their possible
influence on Seventh-day Adventist structural design in 1863, see
Mustard, "James White and Organization," 233-63.
 36

presbyters (or priests) and deacons. A threefold ministry was the

identifying mark of the episcopacy. When the Orthodox Church in the

east separated from the Roman Catholic Church in the west, both

maintained their commitment to apostolic succession and episcopacy.

The Orthodox Churches adopted a form of episcopacy which featured a

federation of self-governing churches, each with its own presiding

patriarch. The episcopacy of the Roman Catholic Church, on the other

hand, became more centralized, its bishops being appointed by one head

bishop. Its centralized episcopal govenance enabled the western

church to more easliy maintain its catholicity in doctrine and form.

With the Reformation came other variations of episcopal form.

The Anglican Church, for instance, rejected the primacy of the Pope

and the Roman hierarchy but maintained historic succession. Some of

the Lutheran churches adopted a Protestant episcopal system but did

not retain historic succession.

A special case of episcopal governance was that followed by

Methodist denominations in the United States. The Methodists did

retain the episcopacy. But their bishops were elected by

representatives of the church--ministry and laity--and not by a first

bishop or other bishops. At the same time, the church was organized

into conferences which were to deal with matters of administration.

Like the bishops, the conferences derived their authority from a

constituency and not from the bishopric itself as was the case in most

episcopal forms of governance.

^Methodists in the United States and its mission retained a

general superintendent. John Wesley never accepted the idea that
these general superintendents should be called bishops. See Nolan B.
 37

Presbyterian Forms of
Church Government

Based largely on the model established by John Calvin of

Geneva, Presbyterianism emphasized the importance of elders or

presbyters. Although not holding that their form of polity was the

only one allowed by the New Testament, it was understood by

Presbyterians that the essentials of their structure were scriptural.

The basic presupposition of Presbyterianism was the headship of the

Harmon, The Organization of the Methodist Church (Nashville, Tenn.:

Methodist Publishing House, 1962); idem, "Structural and
Administrative Changes," in The History of American Methodism. 3
vols., ed. E. S. Bucke (New York: Abingdon Press, 1964), 3:1-58;
Frederick A. Norwood, The Story of American Methodism: A History of
the United Methodists and Their Relations (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon
Press, 1974); William W. Sweet, Methodism in American History (New
York: Abingdon Press, 1933); Jack M. Tuell, The Organization of the
United Methodist Church, rev. ed. (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press,
1973). Speaking of the contemporary organization in the United
Methodist Church, Tuell has said: "President Harry Truman used to have
a motto on his desk which read, 'The buck stops here.' There is
really no single desk in United Methodism which can appropriately
display that motto. If it can be placed anywhere In the church, it
would have to be on the eight hundred or so desks of the delegates to
the General Conference during their approximately ten-day session
every four years. They have the authority to eliminate every
structure, board and agency within the entire church except those with
constitutional status, such as the episcopacy, the district
superintendency, the conferences, and the Judicial Council" (ibid.,
126). Andrew Mustard has concluded that the administrative structure
of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as it was originally designed in
1863 is indebted more to Methodism than to any other organizational
system. He bases his assertion on three criteria: (1) both Methodists
and Seventh-day Adventists were governed by a General Conference; (2)
the sectional divisions of the denominations were conferences (in 1901
the sectional divisions of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination
became the union conferences) ; and (3) both were characterized by a
pragmatic approach to administration and cited effectiveness as
evidence of the superiority of the system. Mustard, "James White and
Organization," 258. For further discussion of parallels between
Seventh-day Adventist organization, as it was established in 1863, and
Episcopal, Presbyterian, Baptist, and Methodist polity, see ibid.,
233-63.
 38

risen Christ. As sovereign Lord he ruled his people by his Word and

Spirit, directing believers as a whole. There was no concept of an

elite group which had received extraordinary powers or authority

through direct revelation or by laying on of hands. Those who

governed the church were chosen by all the church members, who

recognized that God had given those officers gifts and abilities to

teach and to direct the church in its life upon earth. Presbyterian

churches were independent of one another, but they had a common

commitment to creedal statements embodied in the Belgic Confession,

the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Westminster Confession.

The local congregation was governed by a board which comprised

the elders and local minister. All who governed were chosen by the

church members themselves. Each congregation appointed two

representatives--an elder and a pastor--to the presbytry, which

comprised local congregations within a given geographical area. Each

presbytry then appointed two individuals--likewise, an elder and a

pastor--to the next level of government, the synod. The synod in turn

appointed an elder and a pastor to the General Assembly.

In contrast to the episcopal system, the minister in the

Presbyterian system was not "a delegate of a bishop" but carried out

his ministerial responsibilities "as representing the congregation."

On the other hand, he was not an employee of the congregation, as were

pastors in congregational churches.^ There was no hierarchy or

threefold order in the Presbyterian ministry. In contrast to the

-*-G. D. Henderson, Presbyterianism (Aberdeen: University Press,

1954) , 162 .
 39

sacramentally based ordination of the episcopacy, all Presbyterian

pastors shared in an ordination which was communally based.^

Coneregatlonal Forms of
Church Government

Local church autonomy was the hallmary of congregational

governance. Its scriptural foundations were the headship of Christ

and the priesthood of all believers. Each congregation acted

democratically, choosing its own officers and minister. Corporate

action, especially with regard to education and mission enterprises,

was made possible only on the basis of delegated authority derived

from local congregations. District or general organizations tended

more often to be advisory in nature and dependent on the local

congregations for executive and decision-making mandate.^

There were numerous small, independent congregational churches

in the United States. There were also larger denominational churches

which had adopted a modified congregational order. The largest of

these were the Baptist churches. Baptist congregations were strongly

principled and believed that their form of governance was that which

adhered most closely to that of the New Testament Church.^

^See W. S. Read, "Presbyterianism," The New International

Dictionary of the Christian Church (1974), 801; James A. Gittings,
"The Presbyterians: Structure and Mission," Christianity and Crisis 46
(1986): 181-86.
O
■‘For a description of contemporary congregational governance,
see Gilbert W. Kirby, "Congregationalism," The New International
Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1974), 251-53.

•^See Dale Moody, "The Shaping of Southern Baptist Polity,"

Baptist History and Heritage 14 (July 1979): 2-11.
 40

The late 1890s saw a rising interest in charismata in the

established denominations. Originating in the holiness movement,

Pentecostalism did not originally have any separatist ambitions.

Rather, its goal was to call Christians everywhere back to the

apostolic (Pentecostal) faith. "Everywhere the work was to be under

the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which in practice meant the control

of visiting evangelists."1 Although Pentecostal teachings received

increasing opposition, particularly by holiness groups who saw

Pentecostalism as an undesirable aberration of their holiness

doctrine, most were not forced to form their own denominational

organizations until after the turn of the century.^

Seventh-day Adventist Denominational Context

When the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference was

organized at Battle Creek, Michigan, in 1863, it had a membership of

approximately 3,500.^ All members were North Americans. No

missionaries sponsored by the denomination had ventured from the

shores of North America. However, the apparent "delay" of Christ's

expected return had necessitated a modification in the Adventist

^Robert E. Clouse, "Pentecostal Churches," The New

International Dictionary of the Christian Church (1974), 764.

^The Assemblies of God Church was founded in 1914; The Church

of the Foursquare Gospel was organized in 1927; the leader of the
Church of God in Christ (currently the largest Black Pentecostal
denomination), Elder C. P. Jones, received the baptism of the Holy
Spirit while visiting Los Angeles in 1906; the Church of God
(Tomlinson) started as a Holiness Church in 1886 but did not turn
Pentecostal until after the turn of the century.

^In this study the term "General Conference" will refer to the
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists unless otherwise
designated.
 41

understanding of mission. During the 1860s and 1870s there was a

growing consciousness of global mission. By the 1880s, that world­

wide vision of the church was becoming a practical reality. It was

the impact of the growth of the church and its missionary endeavor

that would necessitate structural reorganization in 1901.1

^See Mustard, "James White and Organization," 91-112; Schantz,

"The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Thought," 212-
221; Damsteegt, Foundations of Seventh-dav Adventist Mission. 149-163.
Damsteegt has said that it was not until the 1870s that the term,
"world-wide" was used with reference to the concept of mission in
church literature (ibid., 285). However, the expression was actually
used in the 1860s. That a consciousness of world mission was
beginning to be awakened among Seventh-day Adventists at the time of
organization in 1863 is indicated by what was probably the first use
of the words "world-wide" in the context of the mission of the
church. It occurred in the same year that the General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists was organized and it was James White himself
who said it. He wrote; "Ours is a world-wide message. Its very
nature, and its destined growing influence, will bring us into notice,
to fill important and critical positions before the world" (James
White, "The Light of the World," RH, 21 April 1863, 165.) Even so,
the church did not really perceive its mission in global terms at
that stage. The Western frontier and the influx of migrants into the
United States were considered adequate challenges for mission in the
early 1860s. In reply to a question by A. H. Lewis, "Is the Third
Angel's Message being given, or to be given except in the United
States?" Uriah Smith had answered in 1859: "We have no information
that the Third Message is at present being proclaimed in any country
besides our own. Analogy would lead us to expect that the
proclamation of this message would be co-extensive with the first:
though this might not perhaps be necessary to fulfill Rev. x, 11,
since our own land is composed of people from almost every nation"
([Uriah Smith], "Note," RH, 3 February 1859, 87). The situation
changed rapidly during the 1860s, however. By 1869 a Seventh-day
Adventist Missionary Society had been established. James White was
appealing: "means are wanted! Other lands are reaching out their
hands to us for help. Means must and will come necessary to the
accomplishment of this missionary work. Let all respond promptly,
and let the good work move on" (James White, "Seventh-day Adventist
Missionary Society," RH, 15 June 1869, 197). In an editorial note in
Life Sketches, it is asserted that a "marked change of sentiment"
occurred in 1873 which suddenly stirred the imagination and enthusiasm
of the denomination sufficiently to send J. N. Andrews as a missionary
to Europe in 1874. The establishment of the missionary society four
years earlier indicates, however, that the supposed "change" was
neither as sudden nor as "marked" as was claimed by that editorial
 42

The Missionary Enthusiasm and Rapid

Growth of the Young Church^

By mid-1888 the church had sent missionaries to thirteen

countries outside North America, and the membership had grown to

26,112--an average annual growth rate of 12.95 percent or a total

growth of 646 percent over the period.^ Already approximately 8.5

note. See Ellen G. White, Life Sketches of Ellen G. White (Mountain

View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1914), 203.

^-Seventh-day Adventist mission was, in the first place,

perceived in terms of "telling the message." Given the commitment of
the church to education and medical missionary work, however, it is
not correct to assume that the church neglected the social dimension
of the missionary endeavor.

^The missionary society that had been organized by the General

Conference in 1869 was established too late for M. B. Czechowski, a
former priest from Poland who had requested that the Seventh-day
Adventist General Conference send him to Europe as a missionary. The
church did not grant his request and so he had turned to the First Day
Adventists, was sent to Europe under their sponsorship in 1864, and
had proceeded to establish Seventh-day Adventist congregations in
Europe. See Alfred Vaucher, "M. B. Czechowski--His Relationship with
the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and the First Day
Adventists," in Michael Belina Czechowski 1818-1876. eds. Rajmund L.
Dabrowski and Bert B. Beach (Warsaw, Poland: Znaki Czarsu Publishing
House, 1979), 132-59; and Gottfried Oosterwal, "M. B. Czechowski's
Significance for the Growth and Development of Seventh-day Adventist
Mission," in Michael Belina Czechowski 1818-1876. eds. Rajmund L.
Dabrowski and Bert B. Beach (Warsaw, Poland: Znaki Czarsu Publishing
House, 1979), 160-205. John Nevins Andrews, the first official
"overseas" missionary of the church was sent to Switzerland on 15
September 1874. The invitation for a missionary to be sent to Europe
had been given by Albert Vuilleumier of Switzerland who had been
converted to Seventh-day Adventism under the preaching of Czechowski
about 1867. SPA Encyclopedia. 1976 ed., s.v. "Vuilleumier, Albert
Frederic." For a chronological list of significant events in Seventh-
day Adventist missions, see Schantz, "The Development of Seventh-day
Adventist Missionary Thought," 774-81. For treatment of the history
of the development of Seventh-day Adventist Missions, see Historical
Sketches of the Foreign Missions of Seventh-dav Adventists (Basel:
Imprimerie Polyglotte, 1886); An Outline of Mission Fields; A Help to
the Study of the Work of Seventh-dav Adventists in Lands Outside North
America (Washington, D.C.: Mission Board of Seventh-Day Adventists,
1920); William A. Spicer, Our Story of Missions (Mountain View,
Calif.: Pacific Press, 1921); idem, The Gospel in All the World
 43

percent of the growing church membership was non-North American,

although it is doubtful that any of the members were indigenous to

non-Western cultures.^ The main objective of the missionary endeavor

of the church had been the establishment of missionary outposts in

societies whose cultural background was similar to that of the

(Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1926); idem, Miracles of Modern

Missions (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1926); An Outline of
Mission Fields: A Help to the Study of the Work of Seventh-dav
Adventists in Lands Outside North America. 5th ed. (Washington, D.C.:
Mission Board of Seventh-day Adventists, 1927); Schwarz, Light
Bearers. 134-50, 198-249, 354-72; Schantz, "The Development of
Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Thought," 199-445; Harry Leonard,
ed., J, N. Andrews: The Man and the Mission (Berrien Springs, Mich.:
Andrews University Press, 1985); and Vande Vere, "Years of Expansion,"
66-94. It is of interest that even though the Mission Board had
ceased to be a legal entity in 1919, and even though to all intents
and purposes its function had been integrated with that of the General
Conference executive committee in 1901, it was still regarded as the
publisher of this volume in 1925. For a proposal as to the viability
and, in fact, the desirability of a contemporary semi-autonomous board
of mission in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, see Bruce Bauer,
"Congregational and Mission Structures and How the Seventh-day
Adventist Church Has Related to Them" (D.Miss. diss., Fuller
Theological Seminary, 1982). By way of comparison with growth rates
in the nineteenth century, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has grown
411 percent in the twenty-five year period between 1962 and the end of
1987.

■'■Emmett Vande Vere has estimated that in 1877 "about a tenth

of the Adventist church . . . was composed of foreign-language
members." Most likely, however, he was speaking only of the
constituency of the North American church. Adventists were having
success among ethnic immigrants to the United States. Vande Vere
cites figures which estimate that there had been eight hundred
Scandinavian converts up until 1877 and some seven hundred German
converts. Vande Vere, "Years of Expansion," 86-87. Statistics
indicate that in 1888 there were 396 members in Australia and New
Zealand, 152 in Britain, 143 in Canada, 1482 in Europe, 27 in South
Africa, and 25 "others." While it is conceivable that these "others"
were from non-Western cultures, such is unlikely, since the later
baptism of the "first Indian," the "first Japanese," and the "first
African" were considered to be significant events. See Seventh-dav
Adventist Yearbook of Statistics. 1889 (Battle Creek, Mich.: Review
and Herald Publishing Co., 1889); Schantz, "The Development of
Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Thought," 777-78.
 44

missionaries who left the shores of North America.^

There was a sense of great expectation and vibrant enthusiasm

about the mission of the church--the kind of enthusiasm that was

characteristic of many young denominations. Unlike many others,

however, Seventh-day Adventists did not limit their field of

missionary operations to the immediate environs of particular

congregations, to the state where their church headquarters were

located, or even to North America. Rather, they had developed a

global perspective on mission which compelled them to attempt world

evangelization on a most ambitious scale. ^

■'■By 1888 it was reported that "the work of Seventh-day

Adventists" had begun in "a number of centers in different parts of
the world." Oakland, California; Melbourne, Australia; London,
England; Basel, Switzerland; and Christiana, Norway, were cited as
centers which could be considered as geographic focal points. By that
time the "full catalogue” of published works designed for use in the
mission setting included "fifty four different works in Danish, fifty
one in Swedish, fifty in French, sixty three in German and twenty six
in Holland, besides the eight periodicals issued in the Danish,
Swedish, German, French and Holland languages." What was not
mentioned was that, even at that time, many of the publications were
still primarily serving migrant populations in the United States
itself. No mention was made at all of any efforts to reach non-
European races and cultures. However, with a certain sense of
satisfaction and accomplishment, it was reported that "a good
beginning is thus made in the occupation of the field assigned to this
message, which is to go to 'many peoples, nations, tongues and
kings'" (A Brief Sketch of the Origin. Progress and Principles of the
Seventh-dav Adventists [Battle Creek, Mich; Review and Herald, 1888],
18-19) .

^The commitment to mission was well illustrated by an incident

recorded by W. A. Spicer. Spicer related that while the General
Conference was in session in 1886, a message arrived from South Africa
requesting that the church send missionaries to that part of the
world. "Many will remember," he recounted, "the reading of Africa's
call in the Tabernacle at Battle Creek that day. Brethren wept for
iov as that word came from Brethren G. J. Van Druten and Peter
Wessels, of the African diamond fields region, that there were Sabbath
keepers in Africa longing to have workers sent out to preach the
message of truth, more precious than diamonds and rubies. Then Elders
 45

In the twelve years between 1888 and 1900, the membership of

the church grew by a further 290.2 percent to 75,767, and an

additional thirty-eight countries were entered by official Seventh-day

Adventist missionaries. Already 17.3 percent of church members were

living outside North America. Still, only a very small percentage of

them--4.3 percent--were actually from non-Western cultural

backgrounds.1 Because of its rapid growth the time had come for the

church to seriously reconsider the ability of the organizational

system that it had instituted in 1863 to accommodate the growth that

D. A. Robinson and C. L. Boyd were appointed to South Africa, with

several associate workers" (Spicer, Our Story of Missions. 207-8,
emphasis supplied.) All emphasis in quotations is that of the
original author, except where otherwise noted.

^By the end of 1903, 22.07 percent of church members were

from outside North America. Erich Baumgartner has pointed out that
from the beginning of the church's foreign missionary endeavor,
overseas decadal growth rates averaged more than double those of North
America. See Baumgartner, "Church Growth and Church Structure," 22.
Despite the rapid proportional growth of this segment of the church's
constituency, only 5.1 percent of the members were from non-Western
cultural backgrounds. At the end of 1986, however, 86.7 percent of
the 5,038,671 Seventh-day Adventist Church members were living outside
the United States and 80.5 percent of all church members had their
cultural roots in non-Western cultures. See "Statistical Report," RH .
18 August 1904, 8-16; 124th Annual Statistical Report. 1986
(Washington, D.C.: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists:
Office of Archives and Statistics, 1987). The statistics given above
are based on the reported data in the official statistical records of
the church. Care should be taken, however, not to lay too much stress
on precise statistical data around the turn of the century. In the
process of reorganization, fluctuations appeared in church membership
which were not the result of immediate baptisms or apostasies but were
the result of adjustments to church membership records which were
indicative of a new awareness of organization at every level of church
government. For instance, the report in 1903 indicated a drop in the
number of Sabbath keepers in "miscellaneous fields" from 4,152 in 1902
to 2,469 in 1903. Such an immediate drastic loss is highly unlikely.
Further, the total membership in 1902 is listed as 73,522. But in
1900 it had been listed as 75,767--a drop of 2,245 from 1900 to 1902.
 46

had occurred, and to facilitate a continuing commitment to the

church's international mission.

The Shape of Organization:

1863-1888

It is not the purpose of this study to rehearse all the

factors which had led to the choice of a denominational name in 1860

and had culminated in the organization of the General Conference of

Seventh-day Adventists in 1863 at Battle Creek, Michigan. Such has

been done elsewhere.^ However, in order to understand the

denominational organizational context from which the need for

reorganization developed, three considerations are briefly addressed

here: the reasons for organization in the 1860s, the form that the

structure assumed at that time, and the role of Ellen G. White in the

process of organization.

Reasons for organization

in the 1860s

It has been proposed by Richard Schwarz and the author of the

article on organization in the SPA Encyclopedia that it was "the

■*-See, for example, J. B. Frisbie, Order in the Church of God

(Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald, 1859); John N. Loughborough,
The Church: Its Organization. Order, and Discipline (Washington, D.C.:
Review and Herald, 1907), 85-156; M. Ellsworth Olsen, A History of the
Origins and Progress of Seventh-day Adventists (Washington, D.C.:
Review and Herald, 1925), 245-54; C. C. Crisler, Organization: Its
Character. Purpose. Place and Development in the Seventh-day Adventist
Church (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1938), 77-103; Spalding,
Origin and History of Seventh-day Adventists. 1:291-311; Carl D.
Anderson, "History and Evolution of SDA Church Organization"; Seventh-
day Adventist Encyclopedia. 1975 ed., s.v. "Organization, Development
of, in the Seventh-day Adventist Church"; Schwarz, Light Bearers. 86-
103; Godfrey T. Anderson, "Sectarianism and Organization, 1846-1864,"
in Adventism in America, ed. Gary Land (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986),
36-65; Mustard, "James White and Organization," 116-92.
 47

question of legal ownership of property--church buildings and the

publishing office" which "eventually propelled the Sabbath keepers

into formal organization."1 They are probably correct in their claim.

The immediate, pragmatic need for some form of organization certainly

«•
was the impetus needed to force the recognized leaders of the church

to involve the church in an organizational process.^

Schwarz added, however, that there were undergirding

theological considerations which informed that pragmatism. He quoted

James White, who stated in 1860 that "if God in his everlasting word

calls on us to act the part of faithful stewards of his goods, we had

better attend to those matters in a legal manner--the only way we can

^-Schwarz, Light Bearers. 93; SPA Encyclopedia. "Organization."

The SPA Encyclopedia lists only pragmatic reasons for the

organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the 1860s. The
given reasons are: the rapid increase in adherents during the 1850s;
the legal problems of holding church property; the growing need for
selecting, directing, and supporting a ministry; and the necessity of
controlling personal ambition, fanaticism, and off-shoot movements.
"What caused concern in the 1850s was the problem of self-appointed
preachers who went out with more zeal than ability and consecration,
and without being responsible to any church body" (ibid.) In 1907, A.
G. Paniells listed only pragmatic reasons for organization in 1863.
His list included: (1) failure to keep proper church membership
records, (2) paucity of church officers, (3) no way of determining who
were accredited representatives of the people, (4) no regular support
for the ministry, and (5) no legal provision for holding property. A.
G. Daniells, "Organization: A Brief Account of Its History in the
Development of the Cause of the Third Angel's Message," RH, 14
February 1907, 5. Even Ellen White's list was pragmatically oriented,
although she did leave room for more latitude. Her reasons were: (1)
to provide for the support of the ministry, (2) for carrying the work
in new fields, (3) for protecting both the churches and the ministry
from unworthy members, (4) for the holding of church property, (5) for
the publication of truth through the press, and (6) for many other
objectives. Ellen G. White to the Brethren at the General Conference,
19 December 1892, Letter 127, 1892, EGWB-AU.
 48

handle real estate in this world" (emphasis supplied).-^ For James

White, organization was called forth by some theological

considerations. But those considerations were not explicitly based on

a particular ecclesiological dimension or by the burgeoning missionary

enterprise of the church. Apparently organization was called forth by

the constraints of Christian stewardship. Stewardship, rather than

ecclesiological, eschatological, or missiological concerns seems to

have been the theological basis for the initial organizational

attempts by the church.

With that theological understanding in mind, discussion at a

specially called conference on 29 September 1860 led to the consensus

that organization of the believers into a legal association to hold

property and conduct business could be defended, but organization into

a denomination could not be defended. Nevertheless, on 1 October

1860, the delegates adopted the name "Seventh-day Adventists," opening

the way for the formal acceptance of church organization. One year

later the first conference of Seventh-day Adventists was formed, and

in May 1863 representatives from six states met together at Battle

Creek to adopt a constitution and elect officers to the General

Conference. The Seventh-day Adventist Church organization was born.

The form of organization

adopted in the 1860s

The conference structure. The form of structure that was

adopted in 1863 was based on a carefully prepared report that had been

■kjames White, "Making Us a Name," RH, 29 March 1860, 152.

^See Mustard, "James White and Organization," 195-232.

 49

published on 11 June 1861. It had been signed by nine leading

ministers.3 The writers proposed: (1) "more perfect order" in the

local churches, (2) state or district conferences to preserve the

"efficiency of our ministry" and deal with matters that did not need

to be considered by the General Conference, and (3) the holding of

"general conferences" that would be "fully entitled to the name" and

represent the "will of the body of the churches and believers." They

also recommended that local churches keep written records of business

transactions and membership lists, and issue "letters of fellowship"

when members wished to transfer from one company to another.^ The SPA

Encyclopedia has said that their statement "set forth the basic

principles that have guided the denomination ever since, and at that

time influenced considerably the sentiment for organization within the

church."3

The form was simple. It had three levels: local churches,

state conferences comprising the local churches in a designated area,

and a General Conference comprising all state conferences. There was

to be a General Conference president, secretary, and treasurer, and an

executive committee of three. General Conference sessions were to be

■'■Joseph H. Waggoner, James S. White, John N. Loughborough, E.

W. Shortridge, Joseph Bates, J. B. Frisbie, M. E. Cornell, Moses Hull,
and John Byington, "Conference Address: Organization," RH, 11 June
1861, 21-22.
o
^Ibid., 21. For a statement of the constitution as adopted in
1863, see SPA Encyclopedia. "Organization." For a description of the
form of organization that was adopted in 1863 and subsequent
developments until 1888, see Mustard, "James White and Organization,”
116-92; Richard Schwarz, Light Bearers. 86-103; SPA Encyclopedia.
"Organization."

3Ibid.
 50

held annually. The constituency (3500 members in 125 local churches

and 6 local conferences) was scattered between New York in the east

and southern Iowa in the west.

The form was also unique. It incorporated, but adapted,

elements from episcopal, congregational, and presbyterian forms of

governance. For example, its president was given administrative

powers akin to those of a bishop. Further, the president was elected

by the constituency as were bishops in the Methodist episcopacy. The

Methodist conference system was also adapted to the needs of the

denomination. From congregational governance it adapted the broad-

based authority of the constituency. From presbyterian governance it

adapted the committee system and the concept of representation.

There is little evidence that the early Seventh-day Adventists

intentionally set out to construct an organization which drew together

such diverse elements. That such occurred was more by accident than

by design. Even so, awareness of the denominational backgrounds of

those involved in organization would indicate that such an accident

may have been somewhat inevitable.

Departmental and institutional expansion. Despite the

simplicity and uniqueness of the organizational form in the Seventh-

day Adventist Church, its growth soon forced the church to realize

that in addition to its conference system it had to accommodate other

structures and institutions. Thus, by the beginning of 1888 the

institutionalization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church was well

under way. Seventh-day Adventists still understood themselves to be

simply "a body of believers associating together, taking the name of

 51

Seventh-day Adventists, and attaching their names to a covenant simply

to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus,” with the

Bible as "their only creed and discipline." But there were already

thirty organized conferences containing 889 organized churches.^

There were 227 ordained and 182 licenced ministers.^ The constituency

was supporting six publishing houses, three senior educational

institutions, and two medical establishments.^

Concurrent with the establishment of conference organization,

there arose in the denomination a number of auxiliary organizations

which functioned to promote, coordinate, and administer related but

distinct functions. These societies were not integral to the

conference administrative structure of the church, but stood as

independent entities apart from it. Some of them were associated

directly with institutions established by the church in specific

locations.^ Others were wider in scope. Although they had a separate

^Brief Sketch. 9.

^Ibid., 11-12. It was further emphasized: "None of the

churches have pastors stationed with them. They maintain their
worship without the aid of a preacher, only as one may occasionally
visit them, leaving the ministers free to devote almost their whole
time to carrying these views to those who have never heard upon them.
During the summer months they carry forward their work by means of
large tents. About a hundred of these were in use during the summer
of 1887" (ibid. , 12) .

^The two publishing houses in the United States--The Review

and Herald and the Pacific Press--were the objects of affectionate
description in Brief Sketch. It appears that the denomination looked
with a great deal of satisfaction on the institutions that had been
recently established. Perhaps institutional growth was beginning to
be perceived as a sign of the church's legitimacy.

^For instance, the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing

Association was established in 1861 as the incorporated body operating
the Review and Herald Publishing plant in Battle Creek; the Health
 52

infrastructure, most shared personnel with the administrative

structure of the denomination. Most were located in Battle Creek.^

The major auxiliary organizations that were in existence at

the beginning of 1888 were the General Tract and Missionary Society,

established in 1874 the General Sabbath School Association,

Reform Institute, established in 1866, was the forerunner of the

Battle Creek Sanitarium, managed by John Harvey Kellogg; the
Educational Society of 1874 concerned itself with the establishment
and operation of Battle Creek College; and the Pacific Seventh-day
Adventist Publishing Association, established in 1875, confined its
activities to the institution that came to be known as the Pacific
Press. See [Uriah Smith], "Origin and History of the Third Angel's
Message, Number 8," RH, 27 January 1891, 56-57; and SPA Encyclopedia.
1976 ed., s.v. "Pacific Press."

■*-For a summary overview of the Seventh-day Adventist Church at

the beginning of 1888, see Brief Sketch. 9-40.

^The SPA Encyclopedia gives the date for the establishment of

the General Tract and Missionary Society as 1874. See SPA
Encyclopedia. 1976 ed., s.v. "Tract and Missionary Societies." An
article written in the RH in 1891 gave the date of its establishment
as 1876. See Smith, "Origin of the Third Angel's Message," 57. The
support cited by the SPA Encyclopedia for the 1874 date seems to
corroborate with the evidence for the establishment of the Tract
Society in 1874, however. The organization of the General Tract and
Missionary Society was a result of the organization of state
missionary societies, the first being in New England in 1870 (again
there is some conjecture as to the date, Smith claiming that it was
1871). Since the initiative for this organization did not come from
the General Conference but from the state conferences, no
consideration was given at the time of organization as to the
possibility of integrating it into the framework of the denomination's
administrative structure. A similar situation applied to the
organization of the Sabbath School Association and its relationship to
the denomination. In 1882 the name of the society was changed to the
International Tract and Missionary Society. The concept of the Tract
and Missionary Society was not original with Seventh-day Adventists.
Other denominations, notably the Methodists, had been operating Tract
and Missionary Societies for much of the nineteenth century. See
Timothy L. Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform: American Protestantism
on the Eve of the Civil War (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1980), 167.
 53

established in 1878 ;^ the Health and Temperance Association,

established in 1879 ;^ and the General Conference Association,

established in 1887.^ The National Religious Liberty Association was

later established in 1889,^ an autonomous Foreign Mission Board in the*

4
1

^-A Sabbath School Association had been established first in

California in 1877. Other associations followed in quick succession
so that there were already 12 state Sabbath School Associations at the
time of the incorporation of the general association in 1878. See
Smith, "Origin of the Third Angel's Message," 57.

^The Health and Temperance Association became the Seventh-day

Adventist Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association in 1893. In
1896 its name was changed to the International Medical Missionary and
Benevolent Association. The reason for the change was Kellogg's
insistence that the medical work be non-denominational in character.
He claimed that the way to attract patronage was to advertize a non­
sectarian institution. In 1896 the objectives of the association were
"to erect and manage homes for orphan children and for friendless aged
persons, also hospitals and sanitariums for the treatment of the sick
poor and others, the same to be either self-supporting or supported in
whole or in part by funds secured for the purpose; to establish
dispensaries in cities, medical missions at home and abroad, visiting
nurses' work, Christian help work; to educate missionary physicians
and nurses; to provide for the needy poor; to promulgate the
principles of health and temperance and to do good in a variety of
ways" (Yearbook of the Seventh-day Adventist Medical Missionary and
Benevolent Association. 1896 [n.p., 1897], 58-59).

■^When established, the purpose of the General Conference

Association was to be a legal body. It was incorporated to hold real
estate and property and to enter into contractual arrangements with
other parties. The proposal to have such a body was made and
discussed in 1884. A motion to incorporate was accepted on 18
November 1885 and article? of association were drawn up and adopted on
14 January 1886. See GCA Pro, 18 November 1885, RG 3, GCAr; and GCA
Pro, 14 January 1886, RG 3, GCAr. Perusal of the minutes of the
meetings of the General Conference Association reveals that instead of
remaining simply as a legal entity, the association became involved in
administration of the church, and often found itself in conflict with
the General Conference executive committee and the other auxiliary
organizations.

^The National Religious Liberty Association was established as

a formal body to coordinate the denomination's approach to the
problems with numerous Sunday laws that were being proposed,
legislated, and enforced in many states, and contemplated by the
United States Congress. In 1893 the name of the association was
 54

same year,-*- and the Seventh-day Adventist Medical Missionary and

Benevolent Association in 1893. ^

These organizations were legally incorporated, independent

bodies that had their own officers and executive boards or committees.

changed to the International Religious Liberty Association. See SPA

Encyclopedia. 1976 ed., s.v. "Religious Liberty Association."

^In 1898, L. A. Hoopes wrote a brief history of the Foreign

Mission Board for the RH. He noted that "from the time that Elder M.
B. Czechowski, a Polish Catholic, received the third angel's message
in 1864 [note that he began the story of Seventh-day Adventist
Mission with Czechowski and not with J. N. Andrews], till 1887, the
work of foreign missions was carried on through the General
Conference officers" (L. A. Hoopes, "The Foreign Mission Board," RH, 1
November 1898, 701). In 1887 an additional secretary was chosen by the
General Conference to give his entire attention to the increasingly
complex needs of the missionary work. The first person chosen for the
position was W. C. White. In 1889 a distinct Foreign Mission Board
was appointed. GC Bulletin 1889, 43-46; Baumgartner, "Church Growth
and Church Structure," 35-38. Throughout its life the Foreign Mission
Board stood with the other auxiliary organizations, each an appendage
to the conference structure of the denomination. It appears that the
effect of that structural arrangement was that mission was not
understood as integral to the church and its nature, but as one task
of many. The editor of the RH stated in 1896 that "there are four
lines of effort pursued by Seventh-day Adventists in the proclamation
of the gospel. These are the publishing work, educational work,
health and temperance work, and missionary operations; all these, of
course, being designed to be supplementary to the regular work of the
ministry" (Uriah Smith, "A Bird's-eye View of the Progress of Our
Work,” RH, 18 August 1896, 523).

^The SDAMMBA was a legal corporation which was intended both

to hold the properties of the denomination's medical and charitable
enterprises and to promote the medical activities of the church. The
SPA Encyclopedia states that "although the association was intended to
be a holding corporation for the several SDA sanitariums and other
enterprises, in practice it became a consultative body with a
constituency composed of the General Conference Committee, presidents
of local conferences, several men appointed for two-year terms by the
General Conference in session, all donors of $1,000 or more to its
treasury, and delegates from the various sanitariums and subsidiary
organizations" (SDA Encyclopedia. 1976 ed., s.v. "International
Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association." Dr J. H. Kellogg was
the prime mover and president of the association. In 1896 the name of
the association was changed to the International Medical Missionary
and Benevolent Association.
 55

Although they were all part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church--

officers being appointed by and reporting to the General Conference

session--they were not administered directly by the General

Conference. Because of their independent status, co-ordination and

integration were perennial problems during the 1890s. Not until the

1901 General Conference session and its reorganization of the

administrative structures of the church were the auxiliary

organizations incorporated into the conference structure as

departments of the General Conference.

The role of Ellen G. White in

organization in the 1860s

Despite considerable opposition to any notion of organization

which emerged from both ministers and laypersons during the latter

1850s and early 1860s, Ellen White had stood consistently with those

who advocated church order. "Order" and "organization" were themes

which received her attention and approval, although at no time did she

attempt to delineate the structural form that such order was to take.^

Among the reasons why Ellen White stood for the establishment of

church organization were:

1. She and her husband, James, had consistently carried the largest

share of the responsibility for the burgeoning endeavors of the

fledgling denomination and they both felt the need of sharing that

responsibility.

^Andrew Mustard has stated that "apart from warnings against

sending inexperienced men into the field and condemnation of other
'self sent' teachers, at no time did Ellen White express herself
before 1863 on the precise form of organization to be adopted"
(Mustard, "James White and Organization," 129).
 56

2. She was concerned for the failing health of her husband who would

suffer a severe stroke in 1865.

3. She was convinced that there was a divine mandate for strict

order, discipline, and organization in the church.^

Of the two, however, it was James White who, throughout the

controversies surrounding the proposed organization in the late 1850s

and early 1860s, appeared as the more vocal proponent of the need for

organization.^ Although James White, as editor of the Review and

Herald and the unofficial leader of the Sabbatarian Adventists was

continually writing and speaking in support of organization, his wife

was not even included among the nine persons who were appointed to

^It appears that Ellen White first referred to the need for
order in the church when writing of a vision that she saw at Paris,
Maine, in December 1850. Among other things that she saw in that
vision, she described the order of heaven as an object lesson for the
church and gave counsel in regard to a specific case of church
discipline (Ellen G. White, "Vision at Paris, Maine," MS 11, 1850,
EGWB-AU).

^Godfrey Anderson has stated that "it was James White, with
the support of Ellen's testimonies and in conjunction with the other
leading ministers who had provided the moving force in both the
development of doctrinal unity and church organization. . . . In part
because organization had thus developed from the top down, so to
speak, Seventh-day Adventists chose a system more episcopal than
congregational, one operated largely by ministers rather than
laypeople" (Anderson, "Sectarianism and Organization," 64-65). In
contrast to Anderson's observation that the form of organization in
the Seventh-day Adventist Church facilitated control of the church by
the clergy, A. G. Daniells said of the early organization and the
formation of the Michigan Conference in 1861: "This was the first
conference ever organized by Seventh-day Adventists. . . . The
resolution which locates the source of the responsibility, authority,
and power of the conference places it in the church, or, more
properly, the people. This is directly the opposite of the
organization of the papacy, which places these prerogatives in the
officials" (Daniells, "Organization: A Brief Account," RH, 11 April,
1907, 6).
 57

draw up the proposal for church organization in 1861. It appears that

the church understood her role to be more advisory than definitive.^

The Problem of Administrative

Centralization

Administrative centralization

Centralized control. As the emerging global missionary

consciousness of the church was translated into practice during the

1870s and 1880s, it was accompanied by increased centralization of

administrative control in the denomination. In 1885, George Butler,

president of the General Conference from 1871-74 and again from 1880-

88, spoke of the principles upon which the organization of the church

was established. He pointed out that if those principles were

"neglected," the "real object of the organization" could not be

"accomplished." Although ostensibly he was referring to the need for

communication between the state conferences and the General

Conference, his concern was that the state conferences should not

■*-In August 1861 Ellen White counseled "that some have been
fearing they should become Babylon if they organize. . . . Unless the
churches are so organized that they can carry out and enforce order,
they have nothing to hope for in the future. They must scatter into
fragments. . . . The agitation on the subject of organization has
revealed a great lack of moral courage on the part of ministers
proclaiming present truth. Some who were convinced that organization
was right failed to stand up boldly and advocate it. . . . Was this
all God required of them? No: he was displeased with their cowardly
silence and lack of action. They feared blame and opposition. They
watched the brethren generally to see how their pulse beat before
standing manfully for what they believed to be right. . . . They were
afraid of losing their influence. . . . Those who shun responsibility
will meet with loss in the end. The time for ministers to stand
together is when the battle goes hard" (Ellen G. White, "Communication
from Mrs White," RH, 27 August 1861, 101-2).
 58

usurp the authority and control of the General Conference.^ He

complained that they had been "embarrassed somewhat at the Review

office by communications coming in from State officers" when "no

consultation had been taken with the general officers."2 Two years

later, at the time of the organization of the General Conference

Association, he asserted that General Conference

supervision embraces all its interests in every part of the world.

There is not an institution among us, not a periodical issued, not
a Conference or society, not a mission field connected with our
work, that it has not a right to advise and counsel and
investigate. It is the highest authority of an earthly character
among Seventh-day Adventists.-^

Along with the contention that centralized control of the

actions of state conferences was necessary, there was also a

disposition in Butler's administration to place institutions under a

similar centralized form of control. In a letter to 0. A. Olsen in

1896, Ellen White indicated that she had been fighting against

centralized control of institutions and that as early as 1881 "the

minds of some were agitated in regard to placing these [publishing]

institutions under one presiding p o w e r . S h e continued to oppose the

■*-G. I. Butler, "Propriety in Connection with Our

Organization," RH, 10 March 1885, 153.

2Ibid.

^Seventh-dav Adventist Year Book: 1888 (Battle Creek, Mich.:

Review and Herald, 1889), 50. See also Ellen G. White to W. C. White
and Mary White, 23 August 1883, Letter 24, 1883, EGWB-AU; Ellen G.
White to G. I. Butler and S. N. Haskell, 28 October 1885, Letter 12,
1885, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to R. A. Underwood, 10 January 1888,
Letter 3, 1888, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to G. I. Butler, 14 October
1888, Letter 21, 1888, EGWB-AU.4

4Ellen G. White to 0. A. Olsen, 31 May 1896, Letter 81, 1896,

EGWB-AU. In this letter, Ellen White indicated that some twenty years
earlier she had become aware that institutions were not to be placed
 59

centralizing tendencies of Butler's administration until he completed

his term of office at the General Conference session in 1888. ^

The centralization of authority was most evident in the

tendency to deprive the constituent bodies of the organization of

their decision making authority. In the early 1880s, Ellen White

began to castigate General Conference administrators for taking too

much of the responsibility for decision making on themselves and

failing to give others opportunity to exercise their prerogatives. In

a letter to W. C. and Mary White in 1883, Ellen White pointed out that

"every one of our leading men" considered that "he was the very one

who must bear all the responsibilities" and "failed to educate others

to think" and "to act." In fact, she charged, the leading men gave

the others "no chance."^

Implicit in her condemnation of those who followed that

practice was reproof for those who permitted them to do it without

under centralized control. Her insistence on the decentralization of

institutional control did not subside at all during the 1890s and it
continued after reorganization in 1901-1903. See "Confederation and
Consolidation: Seventh-day Adventist History and the Counsels of the
Spirit of Prophecy," (unpublished paper prepared by the Ellen G. White
Estate, 1977), EGWO-DC.

-*-Ellen G. White to G. I. Butler, 1 November 1885, Letter 5,

1885, EGWO-DC; Ellen G. White to G. I. Butler and S. N. Haskell, 28
October 1885, Letter 12, 1885, EGWO-DC; Ellen G. White to G. I.
Butler, 14 October 1888, Letter 21, 1888, EGWO-DC. Although Butler
formally resigned in 1888, W. W. Prescott later reminded 0. A. Olsen,
then president of the General Conference, that "it seemed almost
necessary to have Eld. Butler removed from his position at the head of
the work on account of his unwillingness to associate others with him
who could share the burdens. His course was delaying and cramping the
work" (W. W. Prescott to 0. A. Olsen, 15 July 1894, RG 9, 0. A. Olsen
Folder 3, GCAr).

^Ellen G. White to W. C. White and Mary White, 23 August 1883,

Letter 24, 1883, EGWB-AU.
 60

seeking to correct the situation. Conference leaders, for instance,

were told that they were to make their own decisions. The president

of the General Conference could not possibly "understand the situation

as well as you who are on the ground."^

As a corrective to the tendency to leave the prerogative for

decision making in the hands of one or two, Ellen White advocated

proper use of the committee system that had been established when the

General Conference had been organized in 1863. She made it clear that

even in the operation of institutions one man's mind was not to

control the decision making process. She emphasized that "God would

not have many minds the shadow of one man's mind," but that "in a

multitude of counsellors there is safety.

There had been efforts to increase the size of the General

Conference executive committee. After an unsuccessful attempt in

1882, the 1883 General Conference session increased the size of the

committee from three to five.^ Discussion of the possibility of

increasing the committee to seven proved fruitless until 1886 when the

proposed increase was adopted.^ Despite the very best intentions,

however, decision making authority remained as the prerogative of far

too few.

•*-These words were spoken to the delegates assembled at the

General Conference session in 1883. Ellen G. White, Gospel Workers
(battle Creek, MI: Review and Herald, 1893), 235."

^Ellen G. White to John Harvey Kellogg, 26 April 1886, Letter

7, 1886, EGWB-AU.

■^"General Conference Proceedings," RH, 20 November 1883, 733.

^"General Conference Proceedings," RH, 7 December 1886, 763.

 61

Centralized location. Another aspect of administrative

centralization was the centralization of church organizations and

institutions in Battle Creek. Seventh-day Adventist church members

also congregated in Battle Creek.^ The latter was a direct result of

the former. In 1884, therefore, the General Conference session took

action calling on all who were "doing no work in the cause here" to

move out of Battle Creek to "destitute fields" so that they could be

of more effective "service to the master." To ensure the successful

application of this resolution, a committee of three was appointed to

"canvass the Sabbath keepers and report to the Conference or to the

church, the names of those who it may appear have a duty to the cause

in this respect." Further, "Elder [J. H.] Waggoner was requested to

preach a sermon to the Battle Creek church on the subject of this

resolution at some time during this session of the Conference.

The action taken by the General Conference in 1884 indicated

^■As early as 1868 Ellen White had begun to call Seventh-day

Adventists to move out of Battle Creek. See Ellen G. White, Testimony
for the Church: No. 16 (Battle Creek, Mich.: Steam Press of the
Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1868), 2-6. See also,
idem, Testimonies for the Church. 9 vols. (Mountain View, Calif.:
Pacific Press, 1949), 2:113-16.

^"General Conference Proceedings," RH, 11 November 1884, 728.

On 18 November 1884, it was further resolved to modify the former
resolution so that it read: "Resolved that we request and urgently
call upon those who are doing no work here as well as those who are
doing little compared with what they might do in other fields to move
to destitute fields where they may be of service to the Master." On
November 19 "the committee on moving from Battle Creek" reported
"progress" and hoped that soon they would be able to report "action."
"General Conference Proceedings," RH, 25 November 1884, 744-45. The
response must have been less than expected. Ellen White was to
continue to call for decentralization away from Battle Creek until the
General Conference headquarters were moved to Washington, D.C., in
1903.
 62

that pressure to decentralize was already being felt by the

administration. No action was taken to relocate any institutions,

however. In fact, no attempt to relocate would be made until 1903,

after the sanitarium and the printing house had been destroyed by

fire. Ellen White blamed those fires partly on the administration's

failure to relocate at an earlier time.^

The nature of leadership

Butler's concept of administration grew out of his concept of

leadership. After the General Conference of 1888, Ellen White wrote

of Butler:

A sick man's mind has had a controlling power over the General
Conference committee and the ministers have been the shadow and
echo of Elder Butler about as long as it is healthy and for the
good of the cause. Envy, evil surmisings, jealousies have been
working like leaven until the whole lump seemed to be leavened. .
. . He thinks his position gives him such power that his voice is
infallible.^

Butler had been elected to the presidency of the General

Conference in 1871. In response to some tensions that existed between

James White and other church leaders, Butler wrote an essay in 1873 in

which he encapsulated his attitude toward leadership. His position

was clear from the opening sentence: "There never was any great

movement in this world without a leader; and in the nature of things

it is impossible that there should be."-*

Butler described a leader as a benevolent monarch. He

1See GC Bulletin. 1903, 11, 30, 85.

^Ellen G. White to Mary White, 4 November 1888, Letter 82,

1888, EGWB-AU.

^George I. Butler, "Leadership," RH, 18 November 1873, 180.

 63

supported his assertion by references to numerous biblical examples of

authoritarian leaders. While he was willing to concede that Christ

was indeed head of the church, he insisted that some men were "placed

higher in authority in the church than others." He explained that

there seemed "to have been a special precedence . . . even among the

disciples themselves." Although the responsibility resting upon those

so called was nothing short of "fearful," it was necessary to

recognize that "when God calls a person to this position . . . it is

no small thing to hinder him [God] in his work." Butler concluded

with a rhetorical question: "When we reach the closing message of

probation, the greatest of all movements, has he placed everybody upon

a level so far as responsibility or authority is concerned, and that

right against his uniform course for six thousand years?"^-

Although James White made it clear that he did not agree with

Butler's position, and despite Ellen White's continuous appeals,

Butler did not modify his leadership style very much until well after

he was voted out of the presidency at the 1888 General Conference

session.^

Authority

Along with the question of leadership style went discussion of

the nature of authority. Gerard Damsteegt has pointed out that

1Ibid., 180-81.
O
■
‘For a discussion of the conflict between James White and
George Butler over the concept of leadership, see Mustard, "James
White and Organization," 175-78; and Bert Haloviak, "SDAs and
Organization, 1844-1907," (paper presented at the Central California
Campmeeting, August 1987), 39-41.
 64

Butler's essay was an attempt to develop the idea that "the highest

authority of the church should be invested in one individual.

Butler was referring to James White. Contrary to that position, James

White himself maintained that "the highest authority" was not to

reside in any individual but was to be found in the context of

the corporate people of God.^ His position was supported by his wife.

Subsequently, the 1875 General Conference session passed a

resolution which called for a revision of Butler's essay.^ The 1877

1-Damsteegt, Foundations of Seventh-day Adventist Mission. 258.

^While conceding that it was possible for the General

Conference to "err in some things," James White insisted that "the
only sane course for our ministers and our people is to respect the
decisions of our General Conference." He continued: "It shall be my
pleasure, while I claim the sympathy and cooperation of Seventh-day
Adventists, to respect our organization, and accept the decisions of
the General Conference" (James White, "Leadership," in Ellen G. White,
Testimony for the Church No, 25 [Battle Creek, Mich.: Steam Press of
the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1875], 192). James
White's position was supported by his wife who, in the same year,
wrote to Butler (who had just completed his first term as president of
the General Conference in August 1874, and was to be reelected in
1880) that "no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of
any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which
is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised,
private independence and private judgment must not be maintained but
be surrendered" (Ellen G. White, Testimony for the Church No. 25
[Battle Creek, Mich.: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist
Publishing Association, 1875], 42-43). Ellen White continued by
reproving Butler for persistently maintaining his own private judgment
of duty against "the voice of the highest authority the Lord has upon
the earth" (ibid., 43). What Ellen White affirmed concerning the
authority of the General Conference should be understood in the
context of the authoritarian attitude towards authority that Butler
and some others held. Both James and Ellen White were describing the
authority of the General Conference over against a centralized
authority in one man or a few men. Many years later, Ellen White
explained that the authority of the General Conference was derived
when "the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the
field is exercised." Ellen G. White, Testimonies. 9:260.

3 General Conference Report," RH, 26 August 1875, 59.

 65

session rescinded all parts of the essay which referred to the

leadership of the church as residing in one man. This was supported

by a resolution which stated that "the highest authority under God

among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will of the body of that

people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when

acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should

be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to

conflict with the word of God and the rights of individual

conscience.

Significantly, while James and Ellen White recognized the

authority of the General Conference, they did so on this occasion not

in order to set that authority over against the authority of the

corporate church as the people of God, but over against the idea that

authority was to reside in one man, even if that one man were a James

White or a General Conference president.

Conclusion

The awakening Seventh-day Adventist missionary consciousness

during the last quarter of the nineteenth century was characteristic

of a powerful missionary movement that arose in the United States in

the last half of that century and in the early twentieth century.

Although it would not be correct to assume that Seventh-day Adventist

missionary enthusiasm was only a result of environmental factors, it

would be just as inaccurate to divorce that enthusiasm and vision from

those contextual constraints.

1 General Conference Report," RH, 4 October 1877, 106.

 66

When in the 1860s the debate over organization had been

settled by the church, and its structure had been determined,

attention began to be focused on the larger vision of a world-wide

task. Although at the time when the church was organized, mission had

not been the driving motivation that it was to become later, the

structuring of the denomination had established a basis for permanence

and set the stage for the spectacular growth, both numerically and

geographically, which was to occur in the years until 1888 and beyond.

It was that growth and vitality permeating the church during

the 1880s and on into the 1890s which precipitated the administrative

crises that began to be felt during that time, especially during the

1890s. Thus the need arose to modify the very structures which had

been entirely adequate in 1863. Change was necessary in order to

accommodate the growing church--to prevent over-centralization and to

promote the delegation of responsibility and decision making

prerogative--and in order to facilitate greater growth. More than

anything else, the reorganization of denominational structures in

1901-1903 was to be necessary because the church was encountering

great success in its missionary endeavors.^

-'-See Baumgartner, "Church Growth and Church Structure." With

regard to the pressing necessity of mission and its impact on
organizational design in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Erich
Baumgartner has observed: "As the work grew and the Adventist
denomination entered rapidly into more and more new territories, the
question of adequate leadership and decision structures on the one
hand, and of control of resources, financial and man power, on the
other hand, became most pressing issues in the church. Beyond that,
the basic question of the purpose and mission of the Adventist church
became, in our view, the battle field which would finally decide the
outcome of the attempt at reorganization of the Adventist church
structure" (p. 22).
 CHAPTER II

TOWARDS REORGANIZATION: 1888-1897

Introduction

When the Seventh-day Adventist Church was organized in the

early 1860s, it was thought that the plan of organization adopted at

that time would be adequate to accommodate and facilitate the growth

of the church indefinitely, or at least until the fulfillment of the

church's greatest expectation--the return of Jesus Christ. Those who

were involved in the process considered that their (unstated)

theological presuppositions, past experience, and projections of the

needs of the church were pertinent and adequate for the task of

building a denominational structure that would not need revision. In

fact, they did not even consider the possibility that subsequent

revision of the administrative structure would be needed. Within

twenty-five years, however, there were indications that revision of

their plan was indeed necessary.

In 1863 it had not been possible to forecast just how the

church was going to expand, numerically, geographically,

organizationally, and institutionally in the next thirty-eight years.

There may have been an embryonic sense of missionary urgency, but the

pioneers of the cause did not understand the implications of success

in their missionary enterprize. In designing their administrative

67
 68

structures they did not take into consideration the management and

integration of the institutions that were to become the basic units of

Seventh-day Adventist mission methodology later in the century and

beyond into the twentieth century. They did not fully appreciate the

implications of managing a church whose members were scattered from

one side of the country to the other, let alone around the world.

There was no thought given to the establishment of specialized

auxiliary organizations.

Therefore, as circumstances changed while organizational form

remained static during the 1880s and 1890s, it became apparent that

either the structure of the denomination needed to be changed in order

to meet the changing circumstances, or the denomination faced the

possibility of inhibiting what had become its very raison d'etre--its

sense of mission. The church was confronted with the alternative of

adapting its administrative structures to its own missionary success

on the one hand, or, on the other hand, maintaining the status quo and

quashing projected success in the future. Since desire for growth

rather than rigid ecclesiological self-image was the lifeblood of the

Seventh-day Adventist Church, the choice between the alternatives

should have been obvious and enthusiastically advocated by all.

Apparently that choice was neither obvious nor enthusiastically

welcomed in the years between 1888 and 1901. Change did not come

easily.

The time-frame for this chapter is the incumbency of 0. A.

Olsen as General Conference president: 1888-1897. The chapter

examines some historical dynamics which were relevant to the movement

 69

towards reorganization in 1901-1903. Particular attention is given to

the continuing growth of the church (numerically, geographically,

institutionally, and organizationally); to the administrative

complexity which was caused by that growth; and to administrative

innovations which were indicators and precursors of the direction that

reorganization was to take in 1901-1903.

Reorganization and the General

Conference Session of 1888

At the 1888 session of the General Conference in Minneapolis,

Minnesota, G. I. Butler resigned from office as president of the

General Conference and was replaced by 0. A. Olsen, who at the time

was supervising the fledgling church in Scandinavia. Because Olsen

could not return to take up his appointed position immediately, W. C.

White was chosen to act as interim president.-*- That action proved to

be significant for the reorganization of the administrative structures

of the church. Immediately, an attempt was made under the leadership

of W. C. White to decentralize the jurisdiction of the General

Conference. That attempt was the first indication that the General

Conference executive committee recognized the need to reorganize

administrative structures in the church.

Acting on a proposal that had been brought to the floor of the

session just a few days earlier, the newly elected General Conference

executive committee voted on 18 November 1888, to divide the territory

^White explained to Olsen that he had been appointed as

interim president one morning when "mother detained me for half an
hour to counsel with her about the publication of Testimony No. 33."
During his absence "the committee voted" him into office. W. C.
White to 0. A. Olsen, 27 November 1888, LB D, EGWO-DC.
 70

of the United States and Canada into four large districts--they were

designated South, East, West, and Midwest.^ Writing to Olsen

afterwards, W. C. White informed him that he had himself proposed

"that there should be a division of responsibility among the members

of the committee," and that, consequently, "various members of the

committee" had been appointed to have the oversight of "different

sections of the country as counselors."2

In replying, Olsen expressed considerable satisfaction at the

new arrangements. Not only did they "fully" meet the criteria that he

had in mind, but he indicated that he had the very same plan in mind

even before he had seen the report of the action that had been taken.

He did not hesitate to inform W. C. White that he "thought that we

were come to a time when something ought to be done . . . in the shape

of districting the General Conference field, and this is just about

what you have done." He cautioned, however, that "as the work

1-GCC Min, 18 November 1888, RG 1, GCAr. The division of North

America into districts was not for administrative purposes as such at
that stage. No provision was made in 1888 for any constituent
committee or coordinated action. No structure for the collection and
dispersal of funds was suggested. The arrangement appears to have
been only for the purpose of giving some of the members of the General
Conference executive committee a delimited area in which to
concentrate their counsel.

2W. C. White to 0. A. Olsen, 27 November 1888, LB D, EGWO-DC.

White added: "Mother has told me that it has been shown to her that it
would be more pleasing to God and for the advancement of the cause, if
men should be chosen to take charge of the work in various divisions
of the country, each one acting freely in his field, not referring all
questions to one man, because the field is too large for one man to
carry all the burdens. . . . It really seems that we must adopt some
such plans as this for our work is certainly too broad for any one or
two men to understand and manage in all its detail" (ibid.) Those
appointed to care for the districts were R. M. Kilgore in the South,
R. A. Underwood in the East, E. W. Farnsworth in the Central States,
and W. C. White in Colorado and the Pacific.
 71

develops, things may take on a different shape and form. 1

1888-1893

Districts One to Six

One year later, in 1889, the area of each of the four

districts of North America was redistributed so that there were six

districts instead of four.^ They were designated numerically as

districts one to six. Those members of the General Conference

executive committee who were appointed as leaders were called general

superintendents.3 Their function was not executive in the districts*

3
I

■*■0. A. Olsen to W. C. White, 20 December 1888, RG 11, LB 1/2,

GCA. In this same letter, Olsen bemoaned his own appointment as
General Conference president. He said: "It is indeed unfortunate
that the General Conference has come to this that such a poor stick as
I am must be chosen as its President. It fills me both with grief and
disgust if I may so express it." Throughout his tenure Olsen seems to
have been continually overwhelmed by the immensity of the task to
which he had been appointed. His overworked condition and self-doubt
concerning his executive ability were rehearsed in many of his
letters, particularly to the Whites. See 0. A. Olsen to W. C. White,
1 January 1892, EGWB-AU; 0. A. Olsen to W. C. White, 1 February 1892,
EGWB-AU; 0. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, 10 March 1892, EGWB-AU; 0. A.
Olsen to W. C. White, 23 March 1892, EGWB-AU; 0. A. Olsen to Ellen G.
White, 23 May 1892, EGWB-AU. While it may be assumed that Olsen's
condition was due in part to his own inadequacy and failure to
delegate responsibility, that was not the only cause of the problem.
A system of organization which lent itself to the centralization of
control and focused decision making prerogative largely on the General
Conference president was more to blame. No wonder Ellen White
insisted that "the work must be divided and part be laid upon other
shoulders to share the burden" (Ellen G. White to 0. A. Olsen, 19 June
1892, Letter 19b, 1892, EGWB-AU.) Two months later she advised Olsen:
"Do not gather burdens, and become crushed under them. The Lord does
not mean to press weights on any one to crush out his life and forever
stop his bearing any burdens." She added: "Worry is blind and cannot
discern the future" (Ellen G. White to 0. A. Olsen, August 1892,
Letter 41, 1892, EGWB-AU.)

^GC Bulletin. 1889, 152-53. In the table given on these

pages, "Foreign Conferences and Missions" are listed as District 7.

3Ibid., 155.
 72

which had been assigned to them. Rather, theirs was a pastoral,

advisory, and representative role. That is, they were to represent

the General Conference executive committee in the district to which

they were assigned and report any weaknesses or aberrations to the

committee for appropriate executive action.-*- The districts did not

have constituencies. The district divisions were merely convenient

units which could facilitate communication of General Conference

decisions to the state conferences and monitor needs and problems

which arose from time to time.

The arrangement of the territory of the General Conference

into districts appears to have been well received. At the 1891

General Conference session, 0. A. Olsen reported to the delegates that

the arrangement of the field into districts "is very satisfactory to

1-On 2 January 1890, the duties of the heads of General

Conference districts were listed as follows. "(1) The member of the
General Conference Committee having charge of the General Conference
district, shall be called General Superintendent. (2) It is the duty
of each General Conference Superintendent to attend the annual state
conferences held in his district. (3) The General Superintendent
shall have the oversight of all ministerial institutes, and annual
conventions held in his district. He shall attend these as far as
possible, and provide for the attendance of competent teachers,
leaders, and councillors, for all these meetings. (4) It is the duty
of the General Superintendent to become acquainted with the officers
of the state conferences, Tract Societies, Sabbath-School
Associations, and Health and Temperance Societies, in his District,
and with their efficiency and methods of labor, and council, caution,
and instruct them, as the state of their work may demand. It is also
his duty to report to the corresponding secretary of the General
Conference, any irregularity, or inefficiency, that endangers the
prosperity of the societies which they represent. (5) It is the duty
of the General Superintendents, to have a special care for weak
conferences, and mission fields, and for such parts of conference
territories as are being neglected, and to bring to the attention of
the General Conference Committee, the condition and wants of such
fields" (GCC Min, 2 January 1890, RG 1, GCAr).
 73

the State conferences, and should be continued. He failed to

mention the reaction of the church members themselves to the

arrangement. The reason may have been that they were very little

involved with what was being done.

An Experiment in South Africa

The most far-reaching developments which would later culminate

in reorganization of the structure of the denomination did not take

place in North America. They took place in response to the needs of

the church as it ventured into new situations in the mission fields.

For example, towards the end of 1892 a most significant development

occurred in South Africa. It came about as a result of demands being

placed on the organizational structure of the church by the escalating

internationalization of the church.^

When A. T. Robinson arrived in South Africa in 1891, he

quickly realized that an organization which comprised a number of

autonomous, self-governing auxiliary organizations was impractical in

the missionary situation in which he now found himself. To involve

the available personnel in the administration of auxiliary societies

and associations would mean that too few would be available for direct

^GC Bulletin. 1891, 4. The session in 1891 was the first

since the new plan of six districts had been implemented. It had been
decided in 1889 to conduct General Conference sessions biennially
rather than annually.
O
■‘Some of the events relative to this discussion were recorded
in Jorgensen, "Investigation of the Administrative Reorganization,"
17-19, 23-24; and more fully in Gilbert M. Valentine, "A. G. Daniells,
Administrator, and the Development of Conference Organization in
Australia," in Symposium on Adventist History in the South Pacific:
1885-1918. ed. Arthur J. Ferch (Wahroonga, New South Wales: South
Pacific Division of Seventh-day Adventists, 1986), 86-88.
 74

ministerial contact with the people to whom they were commissioned to

minister. He proposed, therefore, that the auxiliary societies and

associations be concentrated under the executive control of the South

African Conference which he hoped would be organized in the near

future.

Robinson was not taking the initiative in an entirely new

course of action when he wrote to Olsen requesting approval to

implement his plan. He remembered that the idea of concentrating the

various societies and associations affiliated with the church under

the individual state conference had actually been proposed by a

committee chaired by W. W. Prescott at the 1889 General Conference

session. According to Robinson, however, there had been so much

opposition to the suggestion that the committee had withdrawn its

recommendation and the record of discussion on the issue was deleted

from the minutes.^

Although there appears to be no record of any such committee

in 1889, there is record of a recommendation by the Foreign Mission

Board on 8 January 1890, which appears to give credence to Robinson's

claim. That recommendation was particularly significant as far as

Robinson's location was concerned. It was made with specific

^-A. T. Robinson, "An Autobiographical Sketch," in Jorgensen,

127-28. This "sketch" records Robinson's recollections when he was
ninety-six years old. The GC Bulletin. 1889, makes no reference to a
committee chaired by Prescott or to any discussion of the issue as
reported by Robinson. It does refer to a committee appointed to
consider the matter of consolidation of institutions. Prescott was
not on that committee, however. See GC Bulletin. 1889, 96, 98, 158-9
GC Bulletin. 1891, 123. Also see, pages 116-17 below.
 75

reference to the Colonial Tract Society in South Africa.^

The day after Olsen received Robinson's letter he wrote to

W. C. White in Australia. He enclosed with the letter Robinson's

proposed constitution and informed White that while he was very

anxious that no mistakes be made, he was "personally . . .not opposed

to their organizing on this plan." "It strikes me," he continued,

"that under their circumstances, at least, it would be as feasible a

way as to organize a conference." He summarized his thinking: "I

think it is just as well that the different lines of work should come

under one leading organization.

In his reply to Olsen, White made reference to the plan that

had been devised at the executive committee meetings that had been

held at Camp Goguac in August 1890.-* Although he specifically

addressed Robinson's proposal later in the letter, he affirmed at the

*-The text of the Recommendation by the Foreign Mission Board

reads as follows: "As the question has been raised as to the relation
of the Colonial Tract Society with the mission Board, we recommend
that a plan of organization be outlined for both home and foreign
missions, that will obviate the premature organization of conferences,
tract societies, and Sabbath school associations, and which will
provide for the centralizing of the management of the various branches
of the work under one committee appointed by the Foreign Mission
Board" (FMB Pro, 8 January 1890, RG 48, GCAr.) It appears that
Robinson planned to do everything that the recommendation outlined.
He did, however, plan that his coordinating committee would be the
executive committee of the conference, elected by the constituency of
the conference, rather than be appointed by the Foreign Mission Board.

^0. A. Olsen to W. C. White, 1 September 1892, Incoming

Files, EGWO-DC.

-*There is no reference to any plan for consolidation of the

missionary interests of the church in the General Conference Committee
minutes for July and August 1890. There was, however, much discussion
in the committee minutes relative to the consolidation of the
publishing interests of the church. It is doubtful, however, that
White was referring to that.
 76

beginning of the letter that he "felt at the time [at Camp Goguac]

that for Africa, England, Germany, Russia, and other fields which we

might enter that it would by [sic] much better to have one committee

directing all lines of work with secretaries for each branch than to

have several committees." He made this statement with reference to

the efforts of Henry Holser in Switzerland. It appears that Holser

had proposed a plan of organization similar to that which Robinson was

proposing. Although he brashly expressed surprise that Holser had

"been converted to the new and popular doctrine of disorganization,"

he conceded that "in Switzerland where the work is growing rapidly,

where persons are so very few who can take up the tract society and

Sabbath-school work and do it successfully, and where there is

scarcely any one outside of those employed in the mission work who can

afford to devote time to this work without pay, that these and the

additional difficulties arising from the diversity of language . . .

favor consolidation.

Towards the end of the letter White began to discuss

Robinson's plan, but he admitted that he had not really studied it as

yet but would "try to do so soon." The tone and content of the letter

indicates that White was not at all opposed to the idea of

consolidation of auxiliary organizations in the situation in which

Robinson was working. Referring specifically to South Africa and

Great Britain, White said that it seemed to him that "it would be much

better in such fields to organize upon a plan of consolidation and

^W. C. White to 0. A. Olsen, 14 October 1892, RG 9, W. C.

White Folder 4, GCA.
 77

then watch the results, than to begin hastily to re-model things in

the United States." White had obviously been giving the whole matter

some consideration, although he was not as yet ready to recommend such

a plan for the United States.

Before White concluded his letter to Olsen it appears that he took

the opportunity to look over the constitution proposed by Robinson.

Having done so, he reaffirmed that "as regards his plan of

consolidation, I have been much in favor of it for such a field." It

appears, however, that he had become concerned over some problems

related to the manner in which Robinson was framing his constitution.

He was most anxious that if consolidation were to be attempted that

"it should be done thoroughly." He was worried that the proposal was

only " a sort of a half-way measure" and that it would "bring them

into perplexity." He summarized: "The principal criticisms I have are

that the constitution is too long and too specific; it enters too much

into the details and is built with reference to the principal men now

in the field.

■'■Ibid. White had written a previous letter to Olsen on 28

September 1892, some three weeks earlier, before he had received from
Olsen the copy of Robinson's proposal. Gilbert Valentine has assumed
that White's reaction to Robinson's proposal was contained in that
letter. See Valentine, "A. G. Daniells," 87. Careful review of the
data cannot bear that out, however. In that letter to Olsen, White
argued against any rash moves to "dispense with all auxiliary
organizations." He asked Olsen: "Would it not be a much wiser plan
for us to simplify these organizations and to cease to increase their
number, and then wait to see the results of this before we proceed to
tear them down?" He continued: "Mother thinks it would be a great
misfortune if our brethren should hastily tear down what has been
built up with so much labor" (W. C. White to 0. A. Olsen, 28 September
1892, LB 1, EGWO-DC). But the context of that letter indicates that
White was objecting to a proposition to hastily change existing
structures in established conferences. He was not referring to the
organization of new conferences in mission situations, and certainly
 78

The whole tone of the letter indicates that White was not at

all opposed to the concept of departmental organization in the

missionary setting. His problem was apparently not with what Robinson

planned to do but with the technicalities of the manner in which he

proposed to institute his reforms. The significance of White's

approval of what was happening was that he recognized that as the

church expanded internationally across geographical boundaries,

organizational adaptability was necessary. In point of fact, the

events of 1892 ushered in a new era for the Seventh-day Adventist

Church. They represented the first time that an organizational

initiative was taken on the basis of the need of the

internationalization of the church.

On 31 October, having studied the proposal more carefully,

White wrote to Robinson that "in the main" he approved of what

Robinson was trying to do. He could see "no serious objection to a

plan of organization which will permit one set of delegates from the

churches to transact all the business that is to be done at an annual

not to Robinson's proposition, which he did not know of when he wrote

the letter. In the letter of 14 October 1892, however, White writes a
brief reply to Olsen regarding Robinson's plan. He had only received
Olsen's letter on 11 October, three days earlier. See W. C. White to
0. A. Olsen, 14 October 1892, RG 9, W. C. White Folder 4, GCA.
Further, even though White expressed in his letter of 28 September
1892 that his mother and he were not in favor of making changes in
existing conferences, the opinion of both of them was to radically
change before reorganization of the General Conference in 1901. At
that time, consolidation of the auxiliary organizations of the General
Conference was no longer regarded by Ellen White as tearing down what
had "been built up with so much labor," but as "God's arrangement."
See W. C. White to 0. A. Olsen, 28 September 1892, LB 1, EGWO-DC;
Ellen G. White, "Unheeded Warnings II: The Signing of Agreements," MS
156b, 1901, EGWB-AU. It was apparent that organizational form was to
be adaptable; specific to the constraints of time and place.
 79

meeting." He added, however, that it would take "considerable study

on our part" to make the contemplated consolidation of the auxiliary

organizations "fit together nicely as a harmonious and satisfactory

whole." White then proceeded to make some specific, pointed

criticisms of Robinson's proposed constitution. It was his opinion

that a separate committee should operate the book work, and the whole

constitution was "too long and specific." But, he concluded, "I am

heartily glad that you are going forward with the organization of a

Conference.

Robinson's proposal, meanwhile, was being considered by the

members of the Foreign Mission Board in North America. By 25 October,

Olsen had received "quite a number" of "criticisms" of the proposal

and was prepared to reply to Robinson, although he made it clear that

he was only able to express some "general opinions." Those general

opinions, however, were fundamentally different from those that he had

expressed in his letter to W. C. White on 1 September.^

The objections which were now expressed by Olsen were not at

all like those that had been expressed by W. C. White. While White

was happy with the concept but unhappy with some of the details of the

proposed constitution, Olsen and the members of the Foreign Mission

Board did not even address problems with the constitution. Their

problem was with the concept. They considered that consolidation of

all auxiliary organizations into one administrative unit was

^W. C. White to A. T. Robinson, 31 October 1892, RG 9, LB 3,

GCAr.

^0. A. Olsen to A. T. Robinson, 25 October 1892, RG 11, LB 8,

GCAr.
 80

centralizing at its worst. They were concerned that such an

arrangement would be subject to the abuse of power and susceptible to

the unreliability of human nature. The burden of responsibility was

to be shared, not concentrated.

Olsen told Robinson bluntly that "if our denomination should

take up the plan of organization that you suggest, you see at once

that the idea of centralization would be most prominent, and that it

would bring but comparatively few into responsible positions in the

work." In any case, he assured Robinson that the difficulties that he

might be encountering with the existing arrangement did not seem to

him to be "so insurmountable after all." He concluded: "Nothing would

be more disastrous to the work now than if we should allow ourselves

to be led into a controversy and a long discussion on the form of

organization, and leave the much more important matters of the work to

go as they could.

Olsen subsequently wrote to White assuring him that in regard

to Robinson's proposal, his thinking was on the same line as White's.^

1Ibid.

^0. A. Olsen to W. C. White, 1 November 1892, Incoming Files,

EGWO-DC. In this letter Olsen went so far as to call the proposal to
consolidate the missionary interests of the church under an executive
committee "this evil." It appears that Olsen was reacting in this
letter to White's letter of 28 September 1892--the letter that was
written before he had received a copy of Robinson's proposed
constitution. As has been pointed out, the context of White's remarks
in that letter of 28 September was somewhat different to that of his
letter to Olsen on 14 October. Olsen, however, applied White's
criticisms of the earlier letter of 28 September to the Robinson
situation. Since those criticisms appeared to him to concur with the
criticisms made by the members of the Foreign Mission Board, he
considered that White’s opinions relative to the Robinson proposal
were the same as those that he now espoused, having been influenced by
the members of the Foreign Mission Board. In a later letter, written
 81

Careful study of the correspondence indicates that such was not the

case. White nowhere objected to the applicability to the missionary

situation of the scheme of organization proposed by Robinson, provided

the details could be worked out. On the other hand, Olsen and his

colleagues in North America objected to the plan on the basis that

they considered it as a move toward centralization. Most of those who

found the plan unacceptable were totally inexperienced in cross-

cultural missionary situations.

Thus, despite White's approval of the idea, the organizational

initiative taken by Robinson did not meet the general approval of

General Conference administrators. Robinson was informed too late

that such was the case, however, and had gone ahead and organized the

South African Conference along the lines that he had proposed in the

beginning.^ Subsequently, he observed that in spite of the

disapproval of the Foreign Mission Board, "the work of the South

African Conference went along quite smoothly, under the new plan of

organization.

after he had most probably received White's letter of 14 October, he

did not refer to centralization as the problem with Robinson's
proposal, but to the failure of the proposed constitution to address
future needs. 0. A. Olsen to W. C. White, 29 December 1892, Incoming
Files, EGWO-DC.

^Olsen sent Robinson copies of the criticisms made by the

members of the Foreign Mission Board on 13 November 1892 (most
probably before he had received White's letter of 14 October). 0. A.
Olsen to A. T. Robinson, 13 November 1892, RG 11, LB 8, GCAr. The
South African conference was organized on 4 December 1892 while the
criticisms were still in the mail. SPA Encyclopedia. 1976 ed., s.v.
"South Africa."

^Robinson, "Autobiographical Sketch."

 82

The Auxiliary Organizations of

the General Conference

Robinson's initiatives in South Africa had to do with the role

and control of auxiliary organizations in relation to the conference

structure of the denomination. Concerns regarding the role and

control of the auxiliaries were often voiced and debated during

Olsen's term of office. The failure to arrive at a satisfactory

working relationship between the auxiliary organizations and the

General Conference hindered the development of an acceptable agenda

for reorganization.

The Role of Auxiliary

Organizations

At the beginning of the 1890s it had been hoped that there

would be a spirit of cooperation between the auxiliary organizations

themselves and with the general administration of the church, at least

in the missionary setting.^ Only a short time passed, however, before

there was so much confusion over the role of each organization

(particularly but not limited to the relationship between the Foreign

Mission Board and other bodies), that missionary projects were

threatened and it seemed that bureaucratic bungling in Battle Creek

would devastate the church's evangelistic and missionary zeal. The

construction of a ship to sail on missionary voyages to the South

Pacific was a case in point. Members of the Foreign Mission Board

complained that there was a lack of clarity over who was supposed to

be making the decisions relative to the construction and outfitting of

^See FMB Pro, 8 January 1890, RG 48, GCAr.

 83

the ship. Both the Foreign Mission Board and the General Conference

executive committee were taking actions on the matter.^

Recurring conflicts also arose between the Foreign Mission

Board and the Seventh-day Adventist Medical Missionary and Benevolent

Association. Repeatedly both committees appointed sub-committees to

try to co-ordinate their activities.^ The problem was that both had

an interest in overseas work and workers. The Seventh-day Adventist

Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association wanted to maintain

1See FMB Pro, 10 July 1890, RG 48, GCAr.

ry
^On 20 September 1893, the Foreign Mission Board voted a
committee of three to "confer with a committee of the Benevolent
Association" in order to arrange a plan of cooperation between the
two. FMB Pro, 20 September 1893, RG 48, GCAr. On October 26, the
Benevolent Association appointed its committee for the same purpose.
SDAMMBA Min, 26 October 1893, RG 77, GCAr. But there was no
resolution. The SDAMMBA was still discussing the problem early the
next year. See SDAMMBA Min, 31 January 1894, RG 77, GCAr. The
situation deteriorated even further, however. In 1897 the General
Conference committee tried to smooth the troubled waters. G. A. Irwin
was reported as stating that "in his judgement, the only way was for
the Mission Board to cooperate with the Medical Missionary and
Benevolent Board. He suggested that there was great danger of holding
narrow views and of permitting jealousy to come in between the boards"
(GCC Min, 29 Mar 1897, RG 1, GCAr). Irwin had only just assumed his
role as General Conference president at the recent General Conference
session and was not particularly successful as a mediator at that
stage nor for that matter, at any later stage. That no resolution had
been reached two years later is demonstrated by an amusing incident
that concerned the chairman of the Foreign Mission Board. A series
of joint meetings of the Foreign Mission Board and the IMMBA was held
in March 1899. Apparently, relationships between the committees were
so poor that no-one from the IMMBA told the president of the Foreign
Mission Board the venue for the meeting of 18 March. Recorded in the
minutes for 19 March was the following entry: "Elder Evans stated
that Eld. Moon had not been willingly absent from the meeting the
previous night, but that he had been through the building twice and
could not find the Board assembled." He continued: "Eld. Moon also
mentioned that he had made an effort to attend the meeting although he
was not favorable to attending evening sessions after having worked
all day" (IMMBA Min, 19 March 1899, RG 77, GCAr). At that time Moon
was the president of the Foreign Mission Board.
 84

control of medical institutions and workers throughout the world. The

Foreign Mission Board, on the other hand, insisted that the area of

its jurisdiction was that geographical territory outside North America

and, therefore, that it had a stake in the decisions that were to be

made. From time to time the territory of the Foreign Mission Board

was readjusted as new organizational developments were implemented,

but at no time up until reorganization in 1901 was there to be a

satisfactory reconciliation between the two organizations.

To complicate matters even more, the General Conference

Association, which was supposed to have been established as a legal

entity for the holding of property and the making of contractual

relationships, also became involved in decision making in the area of

jurisdiction of the Foreign Mission Board. Relationships between the

General Conference Association and the Foreign Mission Board were

often seriously strained.^

There were two reasons why the Foreign Mission Board was so

often in role conflict with the other auxiliary organizations and with

the general organization of the church. First, the church was

growing. Its missionary enterprize was successful. The vibrancy and

1-The appointment of persons to fill vacancies overseas caused

continual friction between the two organizations. In 1894, Olsen
spoke to the Foreign Mission Board with reference to appointments and
reminded the members of the board of "the desirability of having
unity of action, so that there might be no conflict in serving the
interests of both the home and foreign work" (FMB Pro, 2 April 1894,
RG 48, GCAr). Appeals to common sense were not sufficient, however.
At a meeting of the General Conference Association in 1896, the
chairman had to admit "that it was sometimes difficult to tell exactly
when the Foreign Mission Board and when the General Conference
Association should be consulted, so closely did they merge together at
times" (GCA Min, 1 March 1896, RG 3, GCAr).
 85

enthusiasm that was being generated both by the vision and the success

of the enterprize generated conflicts. Too often the Foreign Mission

Board was considered to be encroaching on the domain of other

auxiliary organizations. Second, by its very nature the Foreign

Mission Board was not just another auxiliary function of the Seventh-

day Adventist Church. Mission was integral to the very nature of the

church and regardless of the domain of a particular auxiliary board or

committee, the function of each auxiliary was evaluated in the context

of its impact on the accomplishment of the mission of the church.

Mission was the raison d'etre for each church organization.

There were some other conflicts that did not directly involve

the Foreign Mission Board. The General Conference Association, for

example, was often exercised over the control of the publishing

concerns of the church. There were also continuous discussions about

the relationship between the publishing houses and general

administration of the church.

The relationship between the International Tract Society and

the General Conference Association was also a source of constant

concern.1 That problem was further complicated by insistence on the

part of the International Medical Missionary and Benevolent

Association that the denomination's health publications be sold only

by canvassing "agents" employed and administered by the Good Health

Publishing Company and not by the denominational agencies. Canvassing

agents employed by the Review and Herald publishing house or Pacific

1Ibid.
 86

Press were supposed to confine their sales to non-medical books.^

This arrangement meant that there were two independent groups of

canvassing agents selling the publications produced by the

denomination and its auxiliary organizations.

In 1894, even the International Religious Liberty Association

was appointing workers to go to various locations throughout the

country without consulting the General Conference committee nor its

committee on the distribution of labor. The Foreign Mission Board,

the Benevolent Association, The General Conference Association, the

International Religious Liberty Association, and the General

Conference executive committee could all claim to be responsible for

the appointment of persons to positions of their making, and to

financial and administrative supervision. Little need for

consultation was felt except when conflict arose, and then each

organization was reluctant to surrender its prerogatives. The absence

of a coordinated structure made any attempt to remedy the situation

impossible.

^-About the time that the SDAMMBA was formed, the problem of
defining the relationship between organizations that had canvassing
agents was addressed by F. L. Mead, the General Canvassing Agent of
the General Conference. He informed the members of the General
Conference Association that "men that have been trained at the
expense of the Conferences are induced to give up denominational work
and take up the sale of Medical books." He continued: "I cannot see
the necessity of two separate organizations of the canvassing work
. . . so, if you will, kindly define my relation to this company" (GCA
Pro, 13 March 1893, RG 3, GCAr). Mead was speaking with reference to
the Good Health Publishing Company, a company not affiliated with the
other publishing houses of the denomination or with the General
Conference Association, but with the Battle Creek Sanitarium. No
satisfactory arrangement was made, however, and the publishing work
stumbled along in a state of continuous non-clarity. See, for
example, GCA Pro, 4 March 1896, 5 March 1896, RG 3, GCAr.
 87

Not only was there confusion between the various organizations

at Battle Creek, but the situation was compounded even further by the

existence of auxiliary organizations in the state conferences. In

each conference there was little definition of role with respect to

the other organizations in the conference. Additionally, there was no

clear definition of role with respect to the parent organizations in

Battle Creek. As a result the state organizations were in a state of

confusion, largely powerless, and without prerogative to act unless

they consulted with the central organization. But the central

organizations themselves were also in a state of confusion, without

any clear definition of their responsibilities with respect to each

other.

Such a situation only expedited the concentration of power and

the centralization of administrative and decision making authority in

the hands of a few individuals at Battle Creek. Church growth may

have continued during the early 1890s, but it occurred in spite of the

denominational structures and their administration, not because of

them. While the administrators of the church endeavored to address

the problems as best they could, introspection and concentrated

centralization were not satisfactory solutions.

The Control Of Auxiliary

Organizations

Arising out of the numerous disputes over the role of the

auxiliary organizations was the question of control of those

organizations. General Conference administrators did not feel

comfortable with the situation as it was. There was no line of

 88

authority between the General Conference and the auxiliary

organizations. The General Conference committee had no executive

oversight of the auxiliary organizations and was not in a position to

do anything to alleviate the problem unless it was prepared to change

the design of the organization itself. But such a radical change was

unlikely since the presidents of each of the major organizations were

members of the General Conference committee. They had a stake in the

perpetuation of the auxiliary organizations in which their primary

interest lay.

The minutes of the executive committee in 1891 indicate that

Olsen apparently made an attempt to bring some order into the

situation. The record indicates that he "made some remarks upon the

necessity of having all institutions and enterprises connected with

the work under the direction and control of the denomination."

Prescott was of the same opinion, particularly with reference to

"medical missionaries, physicians, and health institutions." A

committee was formed to consider the matter. It's report sidestepped

the issue, however, and did not even address the most pressing

concern.

■*-GCC Min, 8 Aug 1891, RG 1, GCAr. The committee, which was

formed in order to consider the relationship between the "health work"
and the "general work," submitted a report to the next executive
committee meeting which did not even discuss the amalgamation of the
auxiliary organizations under centralized control. Rather, it
insisted on the necessity of the "officers and ministers of the
General Conference and State Conferences" recognizing the health work
as "a part of the third angel's message," and calling upon them to
"unite their interests with those who are giving that message [i.e.,
the health workers]" (GCC Min, 20 August 1891, RG 1, GCAr). While it
was true that there was a general disregard of health principles among
ministers at the time and that many of them were breaking down (see,
for example, 0. A. Olsen, "The General Conference Council," RH, 5
 89

Although it was recognized that perpetuation of numerous

auxiliary bodies, each with administrative independence, was chaotic

and possessed potential for schism, efforts to coordinate those

organizations under the administration of any central committee (as,

for instance, had been done in South Africa) were perceived and

condemned as centralizing.^ Ellen White's condemnation of

centralization was interpreted to mean that there could be no

compromise when it came to perpetuating the auxiliary organizations--

they must remain.^

August 1890, 489), the wording of the resolution indicates that the
majority of those who were on the committee were more concerned with
the advancement of the "health work" than they were with integration
and satisfactory coordination of all aspects of the denominational
enterprise.

^Potential became reality when the denomination lost the

Battle Creek Sanitarium to John Harvey Kellogg. The events leading
to schism in 1904 have best been told in Richard W. Schwarz, "John
Harvey Kellogg: American Health Reformer" (Ph.D. diss., University of
Michigan, 1964). See also, idem, John Harvey Kellogg. M.D.
(Nashville, Tenn.: Southern Publishing Association, 1970).

^The objection to A. T. Robinson's plan for South Africa in

1892 was that it was a move toward centralization. After receiving
some input from the members of the Foreign Mission Board and others
to whom he sent Robinson's proposal, Olsen replied to Robinson that
"the plan of organization which you propose meets a serious objection
on the very face of it; that is, too much centralization. . . . I feel
assured that there are elements of danger in too much centralization.
. . . If our denomination should take up the plan of organization that
you suggest, you see at once that the idea of centralization would be
most prominent, and that it would bring but comparatively few into
responsible positions in the work. . . . It would be laid upon this
one [executive] Committee to do all the thinking and planning for the
Conference" (0. A. Olsen to A. T. Robinson, 25 October 1892, RG 11, LB
8, GCAr). The rejection of Robinson's proposal on the grounds that it
was a move towards centralization was rationalized on the basis of
what the detractors understood Ellen White to be saying regarding the
dividing of responsibility. Olsen told Robinson that "in regard to
our work, you know that the testimony has been all the time that the
burdens and responsibility should be divided." He continued: "How can
we heed the admonitions of the testimonies given again and again, to
 90

By the end of the decade, however, it had become obvious to

some in positions of responsibility that there was to be no solution

to the dilemma if organizational structures remained unchanged.

Robinson's experiment in South Africa had not caused any major schism.

In addition, the Australasian Union was functioning smoothly with

auxiliary organizations operating as departments under the umbrella of

the union executive committee.^ Clearly a solution was available

divide up the responsibilities . . . and yet adopt the plan of

organization you suggest seems quite difficult for me to understand;
for . . . instead of dividing the responsibilities and laying them
upon as many as consistently can take part, it at once centralizes and
confines all the authority and all the burden of planning to a very
few" (ibid.) See also, 0. A. Olsen to A. T. Robinson, 13 November
1892, RG 11, LB 8, GCAr.

^There appears to be some conflict regarding the record of how

and when auxiliary organizations were integrated as departments under
the Australasian Union Conference. In his "Autobiographical Sketch,"
A. T. Robinson contended that it was while he was president of the
Victorian conference in Australia that the idea of departmental
integration was first introduced into conference administration in
that country. Since Robinson did not transfer to Australia until the
latter half of 1897, the Victorian session that he referred to could
not have taken place before mid-1898, as Robinson mentioned that it
was winter in Australia. See W. C. White to A. G. Danlells, 1 June
1897, LB 11, EGWO-DC; Robinson, "Autobiographical Sketch. Robinson
recollected that the Victorian Conference committee's insistence that
the "conference be re-organized, after the plan of the conference in
South Africa," came "like a bombshell to Elders Daniells and White."
Daniells is said to have exclaimed: "This is anarchy, this is
confusion. We are not going to have any of this in Australia." But,
Robinson contended, White proceeded, after the campmeeting season
opened, to go around to "all the conferences in Australia" and
reorganize "all the conferences in the Australian field on the same
plan of the Victoria Conference" (ibid.) It seems somewhat difficult
to reconcile Robinson's account of Daniells's and White's reaction
with their commitment to structural reform and their involvement as
initiators of union conference organization. Perhaps the
inconsistency could be explained if departmental organization had
taken place at union level but not at local conference level. But
Robinson's recollection of the strong reactions of Daniells and White
makes that possibility unlikely. The best explanation is most likely
found by recalling White's reaction to Robinson's proposed
constitution in 1892. Perhaps Robinson had not revised it in the
 91

which, while some perceived it as centralization, could bring more

effective coordination of effort and personnel to the task of the

church.

Ellen G. White and the Authority

of the General Conference

Robinson's action in South Africa was somewhat indicative of

the failure of the General Conference executive committee to make

decisions which were regarded as authoritative by the constituency--

particularly the constituency in foreign mission fields. The

missionary expansion of the church may have been proceeding at a rapid

pace. Missionaries were being sent from the shores of the United

States in numbers never before known by the denomination. But the

centralized administrative structure and the unfamiliarity of those

who were called upon to make decisions with the needs and methods of

the missionary enterprise did not enhance the authority of the General

Conference in the eyes of those who were engaged in foreign mission.

manner that White had suggested in 1892 and was now trying to
introduce a constitution in Australia which was not satisfactory in
all its details to the senior administrators. Further, Daniells
himself at the 1901 General Conference session indicated that
coordinated departments had started in Australasia in 1894. He said,
"We selected the best person we could get in the State as Sabbath-
school secretary. We made it simply a department of the Conference."
He went on, "We carried this same plan right into our Union Conference
organization. When it came to that, we made up our board of men
representing these [departmental] interests" (GC Bulletin. 1901, 90-
91). That being the case it does not appear that Robinson's
recollection can be wholly substantiated by the facts. It is likely
that it was not only as a result of any initiative shown by the
Victorian Conference executive committee that departmental
organization became an important attribute of the structure of the
Australasian Union. Apparently the integration of departments into
the conference structure was accomplished in the Australasian Union
in a manner which was not perceived as centralizing.
 92

Ellen White herself became aware of this during the early

1890s. In 1891 she had gone with her son, W. C. White, and some

literary assistants to Australia. Her experience there, together with

the doctrinal and personality turmoil in the church in the wake of the,

1888 General Conference session, apparently caused her to reconsider

her attitude toward the authority of the General Conference. Her

absence did not prevent her from directing some sharp criticisms

towards the General Conference officers and executive committee. Her

reproofs were not simply to one or two members of the committee but

were directed to the committee as a whole.

Ellen White had always maintained the highest regard for the

authority of the church. In 1863 when the denomination was organized

she wrote:

There is no higher tribunal upon earth than the church of God.

And if members of the church will not submit to the decision of
the church, and will not be counseled and advised by them [local
and travelling elders appointed by the church and the Lord], they
cannot be helped. . . . What would be the use of a church if each
one is permitted to choose his own course of action? Everything
would be in the greatest confusion, there would be no harmony, no
union. . . . It is not a light matter to resist the authority and
despise the judgment of God's ministers.^

James White also upheld the authority of the church. In fact,

he was the first to call the General Conference the "highest earthly

authority with our people." When he made that statement in 1873 he

was concerned that the General Conference president and the executive

committee members were not being accorded proper respect and given a

^Ellen G. White to Brother and Sister Scott, 6 July 1863,

Letter 5, 1863, EGWB-AU. In this letter the authority of the church
appears to be equated with the authority of local and travelling
elders, some of whom were recognized as ministers.
 93

due hearing when they visited local campmeetings where matters of

business were being discussed. He was not contrasting the authority

of the church constituency with the authority of the General

Conference and its officers so much as he was pointing out the need

for respect and due recognition of those in positions of

responsibility.^

Soon afterwards he again made reference to the General

Conference as the "highest authority:" this time in answer to George

Butler's contention that authority was first and foremost to be

recognized in the person of the leader. Butler was specifically

referring to James White himself, as leader of the Seventh-day

Advent ist Church.^

Perhaps Butler was simply building on the basis of the article

that James White had written just three months earlier when he

appealed for respect. Or perhaps Butler had originated his ideas

himself. In either case, James White soon realized the fallacy in

Butler's reasoning. Authority did not reside in any one individual.

Rather, authority resided in a corporate body. The corporate General

Conference was the highest authority on the earth.^

Like her husband before her, Ellen White did not refer to the

Ijames White, "Organization," RH, 5 August 1873, 60-61.

^George I. Butler, "Leadership," RH, 18 November 1873, 180-81;

James White, "Leadership," in Ellen G. White, Testimony 25. 192;
idem, "Leadership," 4-part series in Signs of the Times. 4 June 1874,
4-5; 11 June 1874, 12; 25 June 1874, 20; 29 June 1874, 28; idem,
"Leadership," RH, 1 December 1874, 180.

•^Ellen G. White, Testimony 25. 42-43. Even so, it was

conceded that the General Conference was not infallible and could
"err." James White, "Leadership," Testimony 25. 192.
 94

authority of the General Conference in a context which indicated that

she was setting the authority of the General Conference over against

that of the constituency of the church. When she first upheld the

General Conference as the "highest authority" she was condemning the

concentration of power in one person (specifically, the president of

the General Conference) and advocating its distribution. Authority

resided in the corporate church.^-

Despite her assertion that the General Conference was the

highest authority, Ellen White did not always regard the General

Conference executive committee and officers as using their authority

correctly. In her view it was quite conceivable that the General

Conference by its abuse of the authority which it was granted by the

church as the people of God, could lose the authority that it should

have had.

Ellen White's thinking began to tend that way after the

^-Ellen G. White, Testimony 25. 42-43. In a letter dated 15

August 1988, Tim Poirier, Assistant Secretary of the EGWO-DC, wrote:
"In answer to your question--I do not find any E. G. White statement
with that idea [the General Conference as the highest authority] pre­
dating the one by James White. The earliest appears to be the one in
3T 450-451 [the same one that had been originally published in Ellen
G. White, Testimony 25. 42-43], published in January, 1875, making a
written date of not later than 1874" (Tim Poirier to Barry Oliver, 15
August 1988, personal collection of the writer). Although in James
White's initial reference in 1873 he makes it clear that he was
speaking of the "General Conference" with reference to the executive
committee, Ellen White did not specify, nor does the context
conclusively indicate who she was referring to by her use of the term
"General Conference." She could have been referring to the executive
committee, although it is more likely that she was referring to the
General Conference session "when the judgement of the brethren
assembled from all parts of the field is exercised" (Ellen G. White,
Testimonies. 9:260).
 95

Minneapolis General Conference session in 1888. She wrote in

discouragement after that session:

From this time I must look to God, for I dare not rely upon the
wisdom of my brethren. I see they do not always take God for
their counselor, but look in a large degree to the men they have
set before them in the place of God.^

Her dissatisfaction and disillusionment continued. In 1890, as the

time appointed for the General Conference session approached, she told

Olsen: "I do not expect to be at your General Conference. I would

rather run the other way."^

The next year Ellen White delivered a most telling blow to the

presumption that the General Conference officers and executive

committee possessed unconditional authority. In 1891 she said:

Methods and plans would be devised that God did not sanction, and
yet Elder Olsen made it appear that the decisions of the General
Conference were as the voice of God. Many of the positions taken,
going forth as the voice of the General Conference, had been the
voice of one, two, or three men who were misleading the
conference.^ (Emphasis supplied).

^Ellen G. White, "Experience Following the Minneapolis

Conference," MS 30, 1889, EGWB-AU.

^Ellen G. White to 0. A. Olsen, 8 May 1890, Letter 46, 1890,

EGWB-AU. On the last day of 1890, Ellen White wrote to Uriah Smith
that since her words of counsel and even her motives had been
misconstrued, she now felt "no inclination to converse with the men
who occupy responsible positions" (Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, 31
December 1890, Letter 40, 1890, EGW0-DC). While much of what she says
in this letter is addressed to Smith himself and concerns his own
attitudes, the latter portion of the letter has a wider reference to
many who were in responsible positions at Battle Creek and in local
conferences. Although Ellen White does not give any more specific
indication as to whom she is referring, it is apparent that she did
not regard the authority of the General Conference as being resident
in the officers or leaders themselves. Authority, even delegated
authority derived from a legitimizing process was conditional.

^Ellen G. White, "Board and Council Meetings," MS 33, 1891,

EGWB-AU. The context of her manuscript indicates that Ellen White had
already made her position with regard to the authority of the General
 96

Five years later her opinion had not changed. In a letter

written to the leaders of the denomination with reference to some

things that had been of concern to her "from time to time since the

Conference at Minneapolis," she bluntly told them that

The sacred character of the cause of God is no longer realized at

the center of the work. The voice from Battle Creek, which has
been regarded as authority in telling how the work should be done,
is no longer the voice of God.^ (Emphasis supplied).

This statement was referred to by others and reaffirmed by Ellen White

numerous times, even right up until the General Conference session of

1901.*
2

Conference clear, but there does not appear to be any extant

documentation of an earlier statement. Perhaps she had previously
expressed herself only verbally.

^Ellen White to the Men who Occupy Responsible Positions in

the Work, 1 July 1896, Letter 4, 1896, EGWB-AU.

2Ellen G. White, "Relation of General Conference Committee to

Business Matters," MS 33, 1895, EGWB-AU; idem, "Concerning the Review
and Herald," MS 57, 1895, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to Brother and
Sister Waggoner, 26 August 1898, Letter 77, 1898, EGWB-AU; Ellen G.
White to Those Occupying Important Positions in the General
Conference, 24 January 1899, Letter 9, 1899, EGWB-AU; A. J. Breed to
G. A. Irwin, 5 September 1899, RG 9, G. A. Irwin Folder 1, GCAr; Ellen
G. White to S. N. Haskell, 16 November 1899, Letter 187, 1899, EGWB-
AU; Ellen G. White, "Regarding the Southern Field," MS 37, 1901,
EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White, "College Library Address," MS 43a, 1901,
EGWB-AU; GCC Min, 1 April 1900, RG1, GCAr; GC Bulletin. 1901, 23-25.
In 1938, Arthur L. White was asked to explain the statement that the
General Conference was no longer the voice of God. He proceeded to
answer the enquiry by endeavoring to describe the circumstances which
had called forth the statement. He gave an admirable account of those
circumstances but he missed the point. The point is that there were
circumstances which nullified the authority of the General Conference.
This White did not mention. Rather he encouraged loyalty and
confidence in the leaders of the church. His point was that despite
Ellen White's castigation of the leaders of the church it should not
be supposed that she turned her back on the church or that she
envisaged any other body which would supplant the church as it had
developed over the years. Arthur L. White to J . L. Tucker, 3 May
1938, Document File 296a, EGWO-DC. For another analysis of the Ellen
White's contention concerning the "voice of God," see George E. Rice,
 97

Writing from Australia in 1894 she made it clear that, "as one

whom the Lord has chosen to lay great burdens of the cause of truth

upon, I must not consent to be led in all things by the counsels and

decisions of my brethren, when I know there are times when they are

moving b l i n d l y . T h e n , with reference to the publishing work, she

wrote the following year,

I repeat, the fact that the General Conference has taken the
control of the publishing work does not remove the objection to
consolidation. . . . The very foundation of evil has not been
removed. The same men are acting in the interests of the
publishing work at Battle Creek, and their policy will be
essentially the same as in the past, bearing the signature of men,
but not the endorsement of God.

In 1895 Ellen White declared that when "the very heart of the

work" was "diseased, its action must be uncertain, fitful,

"The Church: Voice of God?" Ministry. December 1987, 4-6.

-*-Ellen G. White to Jennie L. Ings, 4 August 1894, Letter 36,

1894, EGWO-DC.

^Ellen G. White, "Consolidation of the Publishing Work," MS

31, 1895, EGWB-AU. At the same time Ellen White wrote to C. H.
Jones, manager of the Pacific Press, counselling him to disregard the
actions that were being taken at Battle Creek by the General
Conference committee to consolidate the publishing concerns of the
denomination. Against the will of the committee, Ellen White insisted
that the Pacific Press was to maintain its independence. She wrote:
"You are not to hold yourself to seek permission of the authorities of
Battle Creek whether you shall or shall not pursue a line of work that
seems impressed upon you to do. The Lord is the one to whom you are
to be amenable. . . . I look upon consolidation in unity, and
helpfulness of one another, as sound principle; but I do not and
cannot give my influence to consolidation in blending the institutions
in one great whole, and that be Battle Creek, the moving power, the
voice to dictate and direct" (Ellen G. White to C. H. Jones, 8 July
1895, Letter 35a, 1895, EGWB-AU). References which indicate Ellen
White's attitude to the authority of the General Conference in the
same context are, Ellen G. White to the Men in Responsible Positions
in Battle Creek, September 1895, Letter 4, 1895, EGWB-AU; Ellen G.
White to 0. A. Olsen, 1 April 1896, Letter 80a, 1896, EGWB-AU; Ellen
G. White to 0. A. Olsen, 31 May 1896, Letter 81, 1896, EGWB-AU.
 98

unreliable.''^ In 1897, she said that the officers at the General

Conference were like boys, rather than men, doing the work. In 1899

she reaffirmed that in her opinion, the General Conference had lost

its influence.^ Even after the reorganization in 1901 she referred to

the "strange ways" of the General Conference. The basis of her

assertion, even at that time, was that "the representatives of the

Conference, as it has been carried with [kingly] authority for the

last twenty years" could not continue to proclaim, "the temple of the

Lord, the temple of the Lord are we." In 1903 she reiterated: "The

men in positions of trust have not been carrying the work wisely.

Examination of the context of each of these statements which

addressed the status of the authority of the General Conference

reveals a number of reasons why Ellen White regarded the authority of

the General Conference in the manner she did during the 1890s and

^Ellen G. White, "To the General Conference and Our Publishing

Institutions," MS 66, 1898, EGWB-AU. This manuscript was originally
written from Granville, New South Wales, in 1895.

2GCC Min, 23 September 1897, RG 1, GCAr; Ellen G. White to

Those Occupying Important Positions in the General Conference, 24
January 1899, Letter 9, 1899, EGWB-AU.

^Ellen G. White, "Regarding Work of General Conference," MS

26, 1903, EGWB-AU. With reference to the fire in the Review and
Herald plant, Ellen White indicated that the same tendencies toward
consolidation of the publishing work in Battle Creek that she had
spoken against during the 1890s were again in evidence. She wrote to
E. R. Palmer: "I now wish to say that had not the Review and Herald
been destroyed, the plans that you and elder Daniells were forming
would have made it necessary for me to say things to counteract what
you were working to accomplish. In your feelings of opposition to the
proper development of the smaller printing offices, and your desire to
bring much of our publishing work to Battle Creek, you were on the
wrong track. But the Lord has taken this matter in hand, in a way
that must be recognized, and it is not now necessary for me to carry
this burden on my heart” (Ellen G. White to E. R. Palmer, 21 May 1903,
Letter 92, 1903, EGWB-AU).
 99

beyond. Among those reasons were (1) that the General Conference was

not a representative body,^ (2) that in the General Conference,

decision making authority was too centralized,7 (3) that "kingly

power" was being exercised,^ (4) that the General Conference had not

been following sound principles,^ (5) that the sacred and the common

had been mixed,^ (6) that the members of the General Conference

executive committee had become entangled in business affairs,^ (7)

that men were not occupying the correct positions,7 and (8) that there

7Ellen White said: "I have said that I could no longer regard
the voice of the General Conference, represented by these few men, as
the voice of God. But this is not saying that the decisions of a
General Conference composed of an assembly of duly appointed,
representative men from all parts of the field, should not be
respected. God has ordained that the representatives of His church
from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference,
shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of
committing, is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a
small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that
God has vested in His church, in the judgment and voice of the General
Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of
His work" (Ellen G. White, Testimonies. 9:261).
o
In the context of discussion as to the voice of the General
Conference, Ellen White said: "We have reached the time when the work
cannot advance while wrong principles are cherished. Two or three
voices are not to control everything in the whole field" (Ellen G.
White, "Regarding the Southern Work," MS 37, 1901, EGWO-DC).

-*Ellen G. White, "Regarding Work of General Conference," MS

26, 1903, EGWB-AU.

^Ellen G. White to Those Occupying Important Positions in the

General Conference," 24 January 1899, Letter 9, 1899, EGWB-AU.

5Ibid.

^Ellen G. White, "Relation of General Conference Committee to

Business Matters," MS 33, 1895, EGWB-AU.

7Ibid.
 100

was not sufficient appreciation of the needs in foreign fields.^

In short, while Ellen White had the highest regard for the

church, the General Conference in session, and the executive committee

as the agent and coordinator of the work of the church, and was

actively defending the church against attack during the time that she

was so critical of the General Conference, there were circumstances

which were precipitated by the General Conference committee itself, or

by its executive officers, which nullified its authority.^ The

General Conference, and later even the unions and local conferences,

were not to be regarded as having an unconditional authority. Their

response to God and to the jurisdiction that they each had, determined

the status of the authority that each had been granted by the

legitimizing process.^

The 1893 General Conference Session

Towards the end of 1892, Olsen had informed A. T. Robinson

that "nothing would be more disastrous to the work now than if we

should allow ourselves to be led into a controversy and a long

^Ellen G. White to Jennie L. Ings, 4 August 1894, Letter 36

1894, EGWO-DC.

^That Ellen White was defending the church "at the very time"
she was saying that the voice of the General Conference was no longer
the voice of God is demonstrated in Rice, "The Voice of God," 5. See
also Ellen G. White, "Relation of General Conference Committee to
Business Matters," MS 33, 1895, EGWB-AU.

% i t h reference to Ellen White's council to a local conference

which after reorganization was following the principles which she had
condemned before reorganization, see Ellen G. White to the Leading
Ministers in California, 6 December 1909, Letter 172, 1909, EGWB-AU.
Reorganization did not in itself guarantee the end of administrative
abuses.
 101

discussion on the form of organization" in the church.^ Despite

Olsen's wish that time should not be wasted discussing organizational

issues, however, organizational problems became more insistent as his

tenure as General Conference president proceeded. At the beginning of

1893, just after the situation with Robinson had resolved itself,

albeit against the wishes of Olsen and his colleagues, a letter from

W. C. White was read to the General Conference executive committee.*

2

White encouraged the committee to discuss and plan for the possibility

of general organizations for Europe and Australia. He stressed that

such organizations should come under the umbrella of the General

Conference.

But perhaps because of his recent dealings with Robinson, and

similar problems in Switzerland and Great Britain, Olsen was not

prepared to accede to White's request. The minutes of the meeting

record that even though he considered the idea of the organization of

district conferences to be feasible, "the chairman thought nothing

should be planned so as to interfere with the general supervision and

work legitimately belonging to the General Conference." His rationale

for maintaining centralized authority was that the General Conference

was "the highest authority under God on the earth.

■*•0. A. Olsen to A. T. Robinson, 25 October 1892, RG 11, LB 8,

GCAr.

2GCC Min, 25 January 1893, 9:30 A.M., RG 1, GCAr.

^Ibid. These minutes indicate that Olsen did consider the

organization of district conferences feasible. It was even voted that
"the sense of the committee" was "that it would be advisable to divide
up the field . . . into districts; and that conferences, under the
General Conference, be organized in these several districts, to take
the oversight of the work in them." Despite this action, nowhere is
 102

At the 1893 session of the General Conference a lengthy letter

was read from Ellen White which recounted the struggles that had taken

place at the time of organization of the church in the early 1860s.

The letter admonished the assembled delegates not to think that they

could dispense with organization. She was emphatic:

Let none of our brethren be so deceived as to tear it

[organization) down, for you will thus bring in a condition of
things that you do not dream of. In the name of the Lord, I
declare to you that it is to stand, strengthened, established, and
settled.^

While this letter was designed to reaffirm commitment to the

need for organization, it appears to have had the effect of stifling

any adventurous organizational reforms that could have been effected

at that General Conference session. Given the hesitant attitude of

the General Conference president, the movement toward organization of

full district conferences as envisaged by the executive committee

stalled. But there was one decision made which did give at least some

there any record that the districts in North America were ever
formally organized as district conferences. Until 1901 they were
consistently designated in committee minutes as "General Conference
Districts," not "District Conferences." Superintendents were
appointed by, and directly responsible to, the General Conference.
Some analysts have mistakenly concluded that district conferences were
organized in 1893 (see J. I. Robison, "The Organization of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church: A Series of Lectures Presented at the
Theological Seminary, April 1956," RG 21, GCAr, 19; and Beach and
Beach, Pattern for Progress. 55). Since neither of these sources
gives any reference for their assertion there is no way of verifying
their contention that districts were organized as conferences.
Perhaps they have mistaken the action of the executive committee that
district conferences (i.e., district meetings) were to be conducted in
1893 as sanction for the organization of administrative units called
district conferences. Such was not the case, however. See GCC Min,
10 July 1893, RG 1, GCAr.

-*-Ellen G. White to Brethren of the General Conference, 19

December 1892, Letter 32, 1892, EGWB-AU.
 103

encouragement to those who were looking for organizational reform.

Whereas previously all "foreign" work had been loosely designated as

district seven, it was voted that Australasia was subsequently to be

known as district seven, and Europe was to be known as district eight.

Olsen was happy with what had been done, even though it was

not as much as should have been done. He wrote in the Week of Prayer

readings for 1893 that the 1893 General Conference session "was a

meeting of much importance to the work at large. The organization of

the General Conference districts was rendered more complete, and the

system was so extended as to embrace nearly all our work at home and

abroad." He described the time when "upon the superintendents of

these districts will rest much of the responsibility of the work in

their fields that the president of the GC once carried."'*- That time

was not yet, however.

W. C. White was not nearly so enthusiastic about the meager

advances that had been made at the conference. He had wanted the

session to go much further--no doubt because he already had in mind

the plan of organization that was needed in Australia. He wrote to

Olsen that although he was interested in his plan to increase the

responsibilities of district superintendents, he was disappointed that

more pressing reforms had not been addressed. He was not able to find

any action regarding what he termed the "District Federation of

*■0. A. Olsen, "The Year's Work and the Outlook," Home

Missionary. November 1893, Extra No. 2, 3.
 104

Conferences, or any plans for a European, or Australian Union.

White and his colleagues did not rest satisfied. They were

planning an experiment in Australia--the formation of the first union

conference.^ Despite the failure of the 1893 session of the General

Conference to recommend such an action, the leaders in Australia

decided to seek approval for the immediate implementation of a

constituency-based union conference in the South Pacific. After all,

Australia was a long way from North America.

1894-1897

The Australasian Union

W. C. White as district superintendent was concerned that

organization of the union conference in Australasia be thorough. He

did not want to rush the plan to such an extent that the union would

flourish for a short time and then "die without ceremony or burial" as

had been the case with the European Council.-^ He specially requested

that the General Conference president be present to lead out in the

organization of the first union of conferences in the Seventh-day

Adventist organization. Olsen accepted the invitation and acted as

chairman of the session.

XW. C. White to 0. A. Olsen, 8 May 1893, RG 9, W. C. White

Folder 4, GCAr. Olsen's plan to increase the powers of the district
superintendents was not formally acted upon until the General
Conference session in 1895.

^In December 1892, W. C. White had suggested to Olsen the

formation of some "ecclesiastical body to stand mid-way between state
and colonial conferences and the General Conference" (W. C. White to
0. A. Olsen, 21 December 1892, LB 2, EGWO-DC).

■Hi. C. White to 0. A. Olsen, 9 July 1893, LB 3, EGWO-DC.

 105

It was A. G. Daniells, however, who was appointed chairman of

the committee which was given the task of drawing up a constitution.

When that committee submitted its report on 19 January 1894, the

suggested constitution was readily accepted and the first union

conference in the Seventh-day Adventist Church became a reality.

White was appointed president of the conference, Daniells the vice-

president, and an executive committee of nine was chosen. Although

it would be Daniells who was to take the leading role in

reorganization at the General Conference session in 1901, he readily

admitted that it had been White who was the father of reorganization.^

Thus another important innovation which was to have long-

lasting repercussions for organizational structure in the church

originated in the mission field. Both Robinson's plan in South Africa

and the union organization in Australia worked so well that they

became vital models when reorganization took place in 1901.^

In later years Daniells acknowledged that the establishment of

union organization in Australasia had not been easy. Objections had

XA. G. Daniells to W. C. White, 23 March 1905, RG 11, LB 36,

GCAr. W. C. White was following in the footsteps of his father, James
White. LeRoy E. Froom had no hesitation in designating James White as
the "father of church order among the Sabbatarians" (LeRoy E. Froom,
Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers. 4 vols. [Washington, D.C.: Review and
Herald, 1964], 4:1059.) Daniells's recollections of departmental
organization in New Zealand and subsequently in the Australasian Union
Conference are difficult to reconcile with A. T. Robinson's
recollections of events which transpired at the Victorian (Australia)
Conference session. Compare GC Bulletin 1901, 89-91, with Robinson,
"Biographical Sketch." See pages 89-90, above.
O
The report of the formation of the Australasian Union
Conference is in Seventh-dav Adventist Year Book for 1894 (Battle
Creek, Mich.: General Conference Association of Seventh-day
Adventists, 1894), 60-61.
 106

to be overcome. He recalled that some in North America had been

fearful that "the work was going to be wrecked," that the organization

was going to be torn up, and that there was going to be "secession out

there in the South Sea Islands." He assured the delegates at the 1913

General Conference session that there had been no secession and that

the people of Australasia were as loyal to the denomination "as

anybody in this wide world.

Reluctant Concessions

Despite the presence of 0. A. Olsen at the organization of the

Australasian Union Conference at the beginning of 1894, some of the

members of the General Conference committee were uneasy with what they

perceived as the newly gained independence of that union and the

impact that such would have in North America. Consequently, on 17

April 1894, a sub-committee which had been formed to delimit the

authority of the district conferences (i.e., the district meetings)

voted that those gatherings should be occasions for Bible study and

for consideration of the advancement of the work in their districts in

line with any recommendations that the General Conference might apply

to the local work. Under no circumstances were the districts to use

their own initiative and take action upon matters which had "not been

considered in principle, at least, by the General Conference."*

By the 1895 General Conference session there had been

XGC Bulletin. 1913, 108.

2GCC Min, 17 April 1894, RG 1, GCAr. This action was

subsequently reported in 0. A. Olsen, "Recommendations of the General
Conference Committee," RH, 19 June 1894, 395.
 107

opportunity to observe the organizational experiment in Australia for

over a year. At that session it was voted to expand the role of the

districts in North America so that they could relieve some of the

burdens being borne by those in responsible positions at General

Conference headquarters. It was resolved that the presidents of the

conferences, chairmen of mission boards, and the district

superintendent of each district "constitute an executive board" to

"take under advisement, with power to act, such local matters as shall

be named by the General Conference."■*•

The record of the resolution is followed by a list of

responsibilities which were to be accepted by the district executive

boards. The list included the distribution of church employees within

the district, arranging meetings, and operating schools "of more than

four weeks in duration." Districts outside North America were to

appoint a treasurer to collect and disburse funds as the General

Conference would direct. Some additional restrictions were placed on

the operation of the district boards in order to ensure that they did

not step outside those boundaries prescribed by the General

Conference.

The line of authority from the General Conference to the state

conferences was very much a unidirectional line. There is no

indication in any of the records of the General Conference executive

committee or the General Conference session of 1895 that the districts

in North America were to derive any authority directly from their

constituencies. Any authority to act was derived from the General

XGC Bulletin. 1895, 514.

 108

Conference. They were in a similar position with reference to the

General Conference as the divisions are presently said to be since

attempts to clarify the definition of levels of church structure was

undertaken in the mid-1980s.^

Not all were satisfied with the arrangement that had been made

at the 1895 General Conference session. Olsen found himself

constrained to address questions that were "being agitated throughout

the field" regarding the object of the district conferences and the

principle of delegate representation. In a statement published in the

Review and Herald, he reaffirmed the position that prior authority was

to be found in the General Conference and quoted the appropriate

resolutions of the 1895 General Conference session. He tritely

observed that it would be seen that these questions were "of practical

importance." Further, anticipating the approaching round of district

-*-A comparison between the definition of the function of the

districts as proposed in 1895 and a contemporary description of the
functions of divisional sections (divisions) of the General Conference
given by Walter and Bert Beach in 1985 reveals some striking
similarities. Beach and Beach describe the divisions as acting
"strictly as sections of the General Conference, that is to say, for
and as the General Conference in their respective territories." This
arrangement is seen to be necessary in order to uphold the "authority
and universality of the General Conference." Further, they explain
that "the worldwide General Conference constituency . . . would elect
the staffs of . . . all divisions; the divisions would have no
distinct constituency of their own." As if in concert with the
resolution named as resolution 15, 1895, Beach and Beach assert that
"actions taken by the division committees are considered final,
provided they are in harmony with the plans and policy of the General
Conference as set forth in its constitution and bylaws and by Annual
Councils." At the 1895 General Conference session, resolution fifteen
was worded so as to make it understood that the executive authority of
the district boards was always only to be "under advisement" and that
their "power to act" on "local matters" was to be closely defined by
the General Conference. GC Bulletin. 1895, 514; Beach and Beach,
Pattern for Progress. 61-62.
 109

meetings, he encouraged church members to discuss how the resolutions

could be made "as applicable as possible to the local work in each

field." But he did not address the issue of the authority of

delegates to make decisions independent of the General Conference.^

In 1896 very little formal action was taken regarding

organization. By that time Olsen had been president of the General

Conference for eight years and had lost any willingness that he may

have had in 1888 to be at all enthusiastic about innovation or

organizational reform. Despite innovations that had come during his

tenure as General conference president he had never been particularly

forward thinking in that respect. The innovation of districts and the

union conference in Australia had come in spite of, not because of,

him. The necessity of dealing with financial and other crises that

continuously plagued Battle Creek precluded him from giving the

subject the attention it deserved. It was not so much that he

objectively determined to maintain the status quo. Rather,'by 1896 he

was subjectively incapable of doing anything to change it.

That is not to say that he did not recognize that something

was very wrong with the system. At the commencement of the spring

session of the executive committee in 1896, Olsen laid particular

stress upon the importance of the council, stating that "it would

probably be the most important ever conducted by the Seventh-day

Adventist denomination" (a common expression of his). He went on to

earnestly exhort the committee to spend as much time as possible in

1q . A. Olsen, "District Conferences," RH, 17 September 1895,

608.
 110

prayer and personal devotion during the council.^

When, at the same meeting of the executive committee, he later

took the opportunity to discuss "the plan of organization of the

Seventh-day Adventists," he did not address issues and specific

proposals, but rather spoke in terms of the peculiar nature of the

organization and that "the only thing holding the denomination

together" was the Spirit of God. Again the necessity of earnest

devotion was urged. "Careful planning for our future work" was

mentioned only as an after-thought.*

2

Institutional Growth and

Its Consequences

Despite its administrative predicament, the church had been

experiencing spectacular institutional growth during the years of the

Olsen administration. That growth was not about to stop.

Institutions were growing both in number and in size.-* Most startling

was the growth in the number of educational institutions. By December

1903, it would be reported that there were 464 church schools from

elementary to tertiary level, employing 687 teachers and having an

enrollment of 11,145.^ In 1888 there had only been three major

^ C C Min, 20 February, 1896, RG 1, GCAr.

2Ibid.

2Erlch Baumgartner has pointed out that motivation for mission

was "a common genius to all these institutions." That motivation was
present in intention, if not in practice, according to Baumgartner.
Baumgartner, "Church Growth and Church Structure," 33.

^"Statistical Report of the Seventh-day Adventist

Denomination, for 1903," RH, 18 August 1904, 9-16. For a discussion
of the reasons for educational expansion during the 1890s, see George
R. Knight, "Spiritual Revival and Educational Expansion," RH, 29
 Ill

educational institutions and just a few small schools operated by

local church congregations.

Major health institutions were also increasing in number. In

1888 there had been two health facilities. At the 1901 General

Conference session the president was to report that there were twenty-

four major institutions in "various parts of the world." In addition,

"a large number of small bath- and treatment-rooms" had been

established. He also described "rescue missions," "industrial homes,"

and "hygienic restaurants in several of our large cities" as other

aspects of the medical and social work that was being undertaken.

In the same report, Irwin made reference to seven large

publishing houses that were located at strategic points around the

world. In 1888 there had been six such institutions. Growth in

publishing had occurred, not so much by the addition of large-scale

concerns, but in the enlargement of already established publishing

houses. The two publishing houses in the United States had been able

to expand primarily on the strength of commercial printing contracts--

a situation which evoked considerable criticism from Ellen White.

Growth had also occurred as smaller presses were affiliated with some

of the educational institutions. There were printing presses, for

example, at Union College, Nebraska, and Avondale School for Christian

Workers in Australia.

March 1984, 8-11.

^•GC Bulletin. 1901, 21. The rapid development in the size of

the health institutions is demonstrated by Prescott's report that
there were some 2,000 persons employed in medical institutions
compared with only 1,500 persons employed world-wide by the General
Conference in 1901. Ibid., 172-82.
 112

The Role of Institutions

While the church looked with a degree of pride upon her

institutional accomplishments, and while glowing reports of growth

appeared in the pages of the Review and Herald. General Conference

Bulletin, and other denominational publications in various countries,

all was not well. As early as 1891 there had been those who had

questioned "the propriety of investing means so largely in building up

publishing institutions, colleges, etc."!

The given reason for concern was that interest in institutions

would "put off the coming of the Lord." Others contended that such

was not the case at all. They were of the opinion that "nothing which

helps to accomplish the work we have to do, puts off the coming of the

Lord, but rather hastens it."*

2 For them, institutional function was

tied to eschatological hope and mission of the church. Institutions

were a means of accomplishing the task and hastening the end. Thus

there were two opinions as to the role of institutions in the mission

of the church--some regarded institutions as a means to the end and

some regarded them as a hindrance to that same end.

The Control of Institutions

To compound the situation with respect to the role that

institutions were supposed to play in the mission of the church, there

were continuous struggles for control of institutions. Those

struggles did not emerge so much from attempts to wrest institutions

*U. Smith, "Origin and History," 57.

2Ibid.
 113

from denominational control altogether, although precursors of the

loss of the medical institution at Battle Creek can be seen in the

board actions of the Benevolent Association during the period.

Rather, contention emerged from the dilemma faced by each institution

as it attempted to ascertain how it should relate to the auxiliary

organizations within the denomination, the state conferences, and,

particularly, the General Conference.

The situation was not a simple one. Some institutions found

themselves in serious financial difficulty shortly after being

established. Finding themselves in that situation, institutional

managers often attempted to solve their problem by requesting that the

institution be taken under the direct control of the General

Conference. But the General Conference was not in a position to

assume that responsibility. It was itself continually in such a state

of financial embarrassment that despite the committee's desire to

assume firm control of the institutions, it was unable to do so.^

^-Speaking of a situation which was developing in London in

1893, Olsen "emphasized the fact that the denomination ought to
control the Publishing Houses, and not the Publishing Houses the
denomination" (GCC Min, 14 February 1893, RG 1, GCAr.) By 1897 the
question of control was still causing concern to the General
Conference leaders. In fact, the situation had become so bad that,
despite Ellen White's warnings regarding the dangers of centralizing
institutional control, Irwin, who had been General Conference
president for only eight months, confided to his friend A. J. Breed
that "the more I learn of the workings of things generally, the more I
can see the need of somebody having a general oversight . . . and not
allow things to get into such a way as to allow one or two large
institutions to have a controlling interest, so that they can
manipulate things largely to their own liking" (G. A. Irwin to A. J.
Breed, 29 November 1897, RG 11, LB 18, GCAr). One remedy for the
situation had been attempted in 1895. At that time, the General
Conference succeeded in taking an action which required that it
appoint the editorial staffs of the leading magazines in the
denomination rather than have them appointed by the publishing houses.
 114

Institutions were largely left to their own resources and the

resources of the church constituency.

Ellen White had considerable interest in the institutions of

the church, particularly the publishing houses. She was not opposed

to the establishment of institutions. As early as 1894, however,

W. C. White had noted a pattern in his mother's counsel regarding

institutions. He observed that his mother consistently counselled

that church institutions should not be large, and that they should not

be centrally governed by the General Conference or any other body at

Battle Creek.^

Ellen White did not prioritize institutions. Clearly, she was

committed to the priority of the world-wide mission of the church.

The function of institutions was relatedto the missionary task. Th

General Conference, however, was findingit increasingly difficultto

maintain the same commitmentin the face of pressures which were

brought to bear upon it by institutional growth and maintenance.

During the 1890s, therefore, there was a consistent attitude that the

best way that the General Conference could promote a world-wide

missionary enterprise and at the same time attend to the needs of the

institutions which were rapidly becoming the principle components of

its missionary methodology was to consolidate institutional management

and thus centralize the coordination of supply and demand for the

financial and personnel resources of the church. Ellen White was not

GCC Min, 23 February, 12 March 1895, RG 1, GCAr.

XW. C. White to A. 0. Tait, 24 September 1894, RG 9, LB 3,

GCAr.
 115

in agreement with that attitude, however.

Ellen G. White: Consolidation

and Centralization

Consolidation of Institutional Control

When problems of centralization were discussed previous to

1888, they were discussed more with reference to the relationship

between the General Conference and the state conferences. However, as

the number of institutions rapidly increased after 1888 and the church

continued to grow at a remarkable rate, Ellen White increasingly

addressed her remarks to the problem of defining the relationship

between the General Conference and institutions.

During the 1890s, much of her counsel which called for the

distribution of authority was given with reference to the publishing

concerns of the denomination, and later, but to a lesser extent, with

reference to the medical and educational institutions. The publishing

work was, at that stage, the buttress of the missionary enterprise of

the church. When, during the 1890s, she spoke of defining the role of

the General Conference with reference to the institutions, the term

"consolidation" rather than the term "centralization" was used more

often to describe the tendency to bring the institutions under a

^Ellen White did give some counsel relative to institutional

control previous to 1888. For example, in a letter to 0. A. Olsen in
1896 she stated that "twenty years ago" she had "been shown" that the
Pacific Press "was ever to remain independent of all other
institutions." She continued: "Just prior to my husband's death
[1881] the minds of some were agitated in regard to placing these
institutions under one presiding power. Again the Holy Spirit brought
to my mind what had been stated by the Lord. I told my husband to say
in answer to this proposition that the Lord had not planned any such
action" (Ellen G. White to 0. A. Olsen, 31 May 1896, Letter 81, 1896,
EGWB-AU).
 116

centralized management. Defining just what she meant by

"consolidation," she said:

I look upon consolidation in unity, and helpfulness of one

another, as sound principle; but I do not and cannot give my
influence to consolidation in blending the institutions in one
great whole.^

Committee action to consolidate the publishing concerns of the

church appears to have been first taken at the General Conference

session in 1889. With the encouragement of 0. A. Olsen, a resolution

to that effect was passed without discussion by the session delegates.

That resolution read "that we favor the present efforts to secure the

consolidation of the various publishing interests of the

denomination."^ A committee of twenty-one which was appointed to

consider the matter proposed a series of recommendations with "the

purpose of taking entire control" of all the publishing interests,

^The reason for her use of the word "consolidation" appears to

be that it was the term used to describe the committee delegated with
the responsibility of making recommendations regarding the publishing
work between 1889 and 1891. The committee was known as the Committee
on Consolidation of Publishing Interests. See GC Bulletin. 1889, 158-
59.

^Ellen G. White to C. H. Jones, 8 July 1895, Letter 35a, 1895,

EGWB-AU.

^GC Bulletin. 1889, 148. Earlier, Olsen had said: "Unity is

strength. This work as a whole is one. Why should not our various
denominational enterprises be managed by boards elected by the General
Conference? We acknowledge the General Conference to be the highest
authority recognized by God on earth. Here the whole of our people
are represented, and speak through their delegates. Here is no north
or south, no east nor west; it is one the world over. Our publishing
interest and our book business are of the greatest importance. Should
not these properly be under one managing board, and that board chosen
by this body in its annual sessions?" He concluded: "We do feel that
this body should not adjourn before some attention is given to this
matter" (ibid., 95-96).
 117

thus "bringing the work under one general management.

That committee met on a number of occasions during the next

two years and prepared a number of resolutions for the next General

Conference session which was held in 1891. Apart from their resolve

to consolidate the publishing concerns of the church, the most

significant recommendation was that in order to implement the

recommendation, it would not be necessary to form a new legal entity.

The committee recommended that the General Conference Association

serve as the incorporated body which could well take over the co­

ordination and management of publishing institutions, and, at the same

time, maintain consistency with the stated objectives of the

association.1
2*

Ellen White did not respond immediately to the adoption of the

committee's report. Her warnings at the General Conference session in

1891 appear to have been confined to the need to encourage

decentralization as the remedy for the congestion of Seventh-day

Adventists and their enterprises at Battle Creek.^ She did give an

indication of what was to come, however, when, in a passing reference

to the consolidation of institutions, she stated that "no man or set

of men can rule in these institutions in Battle Creek."4

1Ibid., 149, 158-59.

2GC Bulletin. 1891, 123-24.

■^Ibid. , 181. In this address to the session she quotes a

testimony that had first been given on 12 June 1868 in which she had
encouraged Seventh-day Adventists to move out of Battle Creek for
missionary purposes. See Ellen G. White, Testimony for the Church:
No. 16. 2-6. See also, idem, Testimonies■ 2:113-16.

4CC Bulletin. 184.

 118

In 1894, however, Ellen White was much more explicit. In the

context of discussion over a proposal to cease publication or

consolidate some of the periodicals published by the denomination she

addressed the issue of consolidation. She generalized: "I have no

faith in consolidating the work of publication, blending into one that

which should remain separate." She stressed the need to recognize

that "in the different branches of this great work, as in the branches

of the vine, there is to be unity in diversity." She insisted that

such was "God's plan, the principle which runs through the entire

universe." She concluded:

The work is not to be centered in any one place, not even in

Battle Creek. . . . Mistakes have been made in this line.
Individuality and personal responsibility are thus repressed and
weakened. The work is the Lord's and the strength and efficiency
are not all to be concentrated in any one place. . . . I have
little faith in the large or small confederacy that is being
formed. It looks dark and forbidding to m e .^

Despite the fact that this letter was read to the delegates at

the 1895 General Conference session, nothing was done to revoke the

actions that had been taken in 1891. Instead, it was decided that the

"editorial control and the shaping of the general policy" of the

leading periodicals of the church "be placed in the hands of the

General Conference."*
2

Ellen White continued to decry the consolidation of the

^Ellen G. White to the General Conference Committee and the

Publishing Boards of the Review and Herald and Pacific Press, 8 April
1894, Letter 71, 1894, EGWB-AU.

2GC Bulletin. 1895, 372-73, 358.

 119

management of institutions at Battle Creek.^ Not until the

reorganization of 1901 was effected would her pen be silent on the

issue for a time. She was not to remain silent for long, however.

She linked the fire at the Review and Herald plant in 1903 with the

continuation of the spirit of consolidation and confederacy.^

Centralization of Decision Making Authority

W. C. White was a member of the committee of twenty-one that

was appointed at the 1889 General Conference session to consider the

^See Ellen G. White, MS 31, 1895, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to

C. H. Jones, 8 July 1895, Letter 35a, 1895, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White
to the Men in Responsible Positions at Battle Creek, September 1895,
Letter 4, 1895, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to 0. A. Olsen, 1 April 1896,
Letter 80a, 1896, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to 0. A. Olsen, 31 May
1896, Letter 81, 1896, EGWB-AU. In 1901 J. N. Loughborough admitted
that at the same time that Ellen White was speaking against
consolidation, "some members of the General Conference Committee were
studying a scheme by which to bring all the institutions connected
with this cause under the controlling head of the General Conference"
(J. N. Loughborough, "The Church: Advice to the Church," RH, 6 August
1901, 500). A paper prepared by the White Estate has listed six
"evils" of consolidation of institutions as described by Ellen White.
They are, (1) no preservation of individual judgment (Ellen G. White,
Testimonies to Ministers [Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1962],
301); (2) no training of young men to responsibility (ibid., 303); (3)
interference of one branch of the work with another branch of the work
(Ellen G. White to the General Conference Committee and the Publishing
Boards of the Review and Herald and Pacific Press, 8 April 1894,
Letter 71, 1894, EGWB-AU); (4) individuality and personal
responsibility repressed (ibid.); (5) neglect of other parts of the
work (Ellen G. White to the Men in Responsible Positions at Battle
Creek); (6) dangers of becoming a ruling power (ibid.); and (7) the
possibility of demonic control (Ellen G. White, Testimonies. 9:261).
See "Confederation and Consolidation" (unpublished research paper
prepared by the Ellen G. White Estate, Washington, D.C., 1977).

^Ellen G. White to E. R. Palmer, 21 May 1903, Letter 92, 1903,

EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to Leaders of Our Work, 23 May 1903, Letter
114, 1903, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White, "Centralization," RH, 10 December
1903, 8-9; idem, Testimonies. 7:171-74; Ellen G. White to the Workers
in Washington and Mountain View, 30 November 1909, Letter 164, 1909,
EGWB-AU.
 120

question of consolidation. He met with the committee between 1889 and

1891 when it was formulating its recommendations for the 1891 General

Conference session. Since there appears to be no record of his

dissent from the report that the committee placed before the session,

it can be presumed, although not known for certain, that he was in

favor of that report. Soon after that session he left for Australia

and had no personal involvement with the developments that took place

during the next six years.

In 1894, however, he stated in correspondence with Olsen that

the problem of centralization "or diffusion of influence" was a

subject that was in need of study. He admitted that "financially,"

centralization was successful. But he added that "for the progress of

the work," it was "better to establish many places from which an

influence would go out."'*- The problem of centralization was, at that

stage, a problem of location for White. For Ellen White it was a

problem of location, but also much more.

It seems that Ellen White's advocacy of the need to

decentralize was inclusive of a number of concerns. Her opposition to

the consolidation of institutions was one of those concerns. Another

was her call for church members to move out of Battle Creek and settle

in places where they could actively evangelize the population. A

third concern was voiced in her repeated counsel that additional

institutions should not be built in Battle Creek and existing

%. C. White to 0. A. Olsen, 15 July 1894, LB 6, EGWO-DC.

 121

Institutions in that city not be expanded.1

Along with her call to decentralize the administration of the

church from its location at Battle Creek, Ellen White referred to a

much more pressing concern. It was her conviction that there was an

urgent need to delegate responsibility and decision making

prerogative, both to more persons, but more importantly, to other

levels of church administration.

First, with respect to the responsibility being carried by

some individuals in the General Conference administration, W. C. White

had written after the 1893 General Conference session that he was

"surprised to see such a rapid return to the old plan of piling the

heaviest loads onto men already overburdened." He continued: "You

know that I . . . have believed that it was better for the cause to

run large risks in the using of men not fully tried . . . than to

disqualify the few men of experience, who might be invaluable to the

cause as counselors, if not themselves loaded down with a double

burden of work." He was referring particularly to the election of C.

H. Jones as president of the Sabbath School Association, S. N. Haskell

and Olsen to the International Tract Society, and Olsen as President

of the Review and Herald in addition to all the other responsibilities

that these men were already carrying. He added: "the dividing of

responsibility which was undertaken in earnest in 1889-91 [while he

^GC Bulletin. 1891, 181-84; Ellen G. White to the General

Conference Committee and the Publishing Boards of the Review and
Herald and Pacific Press, 8 April 1894, Letter 71, 1894, EGWB-AU
(portion printed in GC Bulletin. 1895, 372-73); W. C. White to 0. A.
Olsen, 15 July 1894, LB 6, EGWO-DC; A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, 21
July 1901, Incoming Files, EGWO-DC; W. C. White to A. G. Daniells, 26
June 1903, RG 11, 1903-W Folder 2, GCAr.
 122

and his mother were still in the United States], was in harmony with

the light repeatedly given to mother on this subject.

Second, with respect to the relationship between the General

Conference and the state conferences, there were many administrative

matters which did not need to be considered at headquarters but which

were being decided at Battle Creek. For example, a problem in the

Adelaide Church, South Australia, had to be dealt with by the General

Conference executive committee,1

2 and a missionary's personal problem

in West Africa had to be referred to Olsen who was overseas at the

time.^ Affirming that the General Conference should have jurisdiction

over such matters, Olsen was so bold as to assert that

It is the province of the General Conference carefully to

watch over, and have a care for, the work in every part of the
field. The General Conference, therefore, is not only acquainted
with the needs and conditions of every Conference, but it

1W. C. White to 0. A. Olsen, 8 May 1893, RG 9, W. C. White

Folder 4, GCAr. Given the burden of responsibility that Olsen was
attempting to carry, it is no wonder that he found himself in a state
of almost constant exhaustion and sometimes even depression. Ellen
White told him: "One thing is certain the work must be divided and
part be laid upon other shoulders to share the burden with you" (Ellen
G. White to 0. A. Olsen 19 June 1892, Letter 19b 1892, EGWB-AU). G.
I. Butler, who preceded Olsen had found himself a physically broken
man by the time he was relieved of office in 1888. Olsen's physical
and mental exhaustion were often referred to in his letters to the
Whites. See 0. A. Olsen to W. C. White, 1 February 1892, EGWB-AU; 0.
A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, 10 March 1892, EGWB-AU; 0. A. Olsen to W.
C. White, 23 March 1892, EGWB-AU; 0. A. Olsen to Ellen G. White, 23
May 1892, EGWB-AU; 0. A. Olsen to W. C. White, 10 August 1892, EGWB-
AU.

2GCC Min, 7 July 1893, RG 1, GCAr.

^The problem was sickness. Apparently the newly arrived

missionaries, E. L. Sanford and G. K. Rudolph, had become very ill and
the Foreign Missions Board needed to decide what to do with them. By
the time correspondence travelled from Africa, to the United States,
to Europe and then back to Africa again, the men could well have been
dead. See FMB Pro, 19 July 1894, RG 48, GCAr.
 123

understands these needs and conditions as they stand related to

every other Conference and mission field. . . .
It may also be thought that those in charge of local interests
have a deeper interest in, and carry a greater responsibility for,
the local work, than the General Conference can possibly do. Such
can hardly be the case if the General Conference does its duty.
The General Conference stands as it were in the place of the
parent to the local Conferences.^

Ellen White repeatedly spoke against the centralization of

decision making prerogative. She regarded as a serious matter the

failure of leaders at Battle Creek to recognize that those who were

closer to the needs of the work were almost always better able to make

decisions relative to those needs. In 1895 she said that there were

"strange principles being established in regard to the control of the

minds and works of men." She asked the leaders in the church, "Has

God given any one of you a commission to lord it over His heritage?

In 1896 she continued to maintain that "altogether too much

responsibility" was "imparted to a few men in Battle Creek." Those

men who could not "appreciate the situation of matters in the

different localities," as well as the men who were "right on the

ground" were not to impose their will on the work. In this context

she made a specific call for a rearrangement of the administrative

structure of the church which would allow a sharing of authority and

responsibility. She said:

The work of the General Conference has been extended, and some
things made unnecessarily complicated. A want of discernment has
been shown. There should be a division of the field, or some other

1 0. A. Olsen, "The Movements of Laborers," RH 12 June 1894,

379.

^Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies for Ministers and

Workers--No. 9 (Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald, 1897), 4-5.
 124

plan should be devised to change the present order of things.^

(Emphasis supplied.)

Ellen White also decried the authoritarian attitude that was

being carried into their leadership style by some. It was her

contention that position did not justify an authoritarian attitude.

"God will sanction no tyranny, no sharp dictation, for this naturally

repels, and often stirs up the worst passions of the human heart," she

declared when writing to R. A. Underwood at the beginning of 1888. ^

Right on through the 1890s she continued to struggle with the

attitudes of many of the leaders.^ It was her fear that

-*-Idem, Special Testimonies for Ministers and Workers--No. 8

(College View, Nebr.: College Press, 1897), 4, 10, 29. She added:
"The Lord can be approached by all. He is much more accessible than
the president of the General Conference" (ibid., 14). In a letter to
A. 0. Tait she elaborated: "Those living in distant countries will not
do what their judgment tells them is right unless they first send for
permission to Battle Creek. . . . Has the Lord to go to Battle Creek,
and tell men there what the men working in distant countries must do?"
(Ellen G. White to A. 0. Tait, 27 August 1896, Letter 100, 1896,
EGWB-AU). "Separate counsels of administration should be appointed,"
she told the Prescotts a few days later. "The men at Battle Creek are
no more inspired to give unerring advice than are the men in other
places, to whom the Lord has entrusted the work in their locality. . .
. All should remember that if the Lord has a special work in any
vicinity, all heaven is interested in that work. . . . The great sin
which has been entering the ranks of Seventh-day Adventists is the sin
of exalting man, and placing him where God should be. This was
demonstrated at Minneapolis" (Ellen G.White to Brother and Sister
Prescott, 1 September 1896, Letter 88, 1896, EGWB-AU). Apparently,
the leaders of the church were aware that what Ellen White was saying
was correct. However there was a reluctance, or more likely, an
inability to take those measures necessary to alleviate the situation.
See 0. A. Olsen to C. H. Jones, 22 July 1895, RG 11, LB 14, GCAr; G.
A. Irwin to R. A. Underwood, 7 January 1898, RG 11, LB18, GCAr; W. C.
White to W. C. Sisley, 7 May 1900, LB 15, EGWO-DC.

^Ellen G. White to R. A. Underwood, 10 January 1888, Letter 3,

1888, EGWB-AU.

^Ellen G. White to G. I Butler, 14 October 1888, Letter 21,

1888, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to G. I Butler, 15 October 1888, Letter
21a, 1888, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to the Workers at the Health
 125

insubordination would eventually be an undesirable consequence of

authoritarianism.

As far as Ellen White was concerned, the tendency toward

centralization was evidenced by a cluster of factors which she saw as

undesirable and against which she was continuously outspoken during

the 1890s. Those factors were (1) the concentration of too many

responsibilities on one person or small group of people, (2) the

location of too many members and institutions at Battle Creek, (3) the

dominance of the General Conference over the state conferences, and

(4) the authoritarian attitudes of many of the leaders. In calling

for reform in each of these areas her counsel was often set in a

matrix of concern for high spiritual values, the abiding presence of

the Holy Spirit in the church, and the headship of Christ over the

church.

Retreat, 31 May 1891, Letter 34, 1891, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to the
Ministers of the Australian Conference, 11 November 1894, Letter 53,
1894, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to 0. A. Olsen, 22 May 1896, Letter 83,
1896, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to E. E. Franke, January 1901, Letter
19, 1901, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White, Testimonies to Ministers. 202-3.

^Ellen White was aware of the danger "of lording it over God's
heritage" (Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies for Ministers and
Workers.--No 9 . 18). She had warned that such a situation would
"create such a disgust of man's jurisdiction that a state of
insubordination would result" (ibid.) See also Ellen G. White to 0.
A. Olsen, 19 September 1895, Letter 55, 1895, EGWB-AU; W. C. White to
A. 0. Tait, 2 September1895, LB 8, EGW0-DC. Ellen White had also
written that the "work of God" had been "retarded by criminal unbelief
in His [God's] power to use the common people to carry forward His
work successfully" (idem, "The Great Need of the Holy Spirit," RH, 16
July 1895, 450). Later, Loughborough took up her concern and in some
"timely advice to the church" reaffirmed that lording it over the
church was not according to the divine plan of organization, but was a
"perversion of it"( J. N. Loughborough, "The Church: Timely Advice to
the Church," RH, 30 July 1901, 485).
 126

The Auxiliary Organizations and Centralization

Despite all that was said about consolidation and

centralization, however, there was one aspect of church administration

that was never referred to with reference to centralization by either

Ellen White or W. C. White. That was the integration of the auxiliary

organizations into a centralized administrative structure. That Ellen

White was strongly opposed to the centralization of institutional

control has already been demonstrated. That she was opposed to the

centralization of auxiliary organizations, however, cannot be

established. In fact, right up until 1899 she appears to have been

totally silent on the subject.^

Even though W. C. White's attitude toward a given proposal

should not necessarily be taken as evidence of Ellen White's attitude,

it is likely that with the integration of the auxiliary organizations

into the conference structure his attitude and actions reflected

^The only reference to Ellen White's attitude that has been

found in the course of research for this study has been a statement by
W. C. White that his mother thought that "it would be a great
misfortune if our brethren should hastily tear down what has been
built up with so much labor" (W. C. White to 0. A. Olsen, 28 September
1892, LB 1, EGWO-DC). W. C. White was referring to the
"auxilliaries"(sic) with this statement. The context indicates,
however, that he was more concerned with any "hasty," ill-considered
move which may later prove to be premature than he was with change
when it was necessary. He emphasized that "as a people we are
progressive, we are opposed to creeds, or to anything that will check
development and this is right; but ought we not to guard against being
fickle? Have we not already shown weakness in the hasty framing and
continual tinkering of our constitutions?" (ibid.) Within a short
time W. C. White himself became the prime mover of the union
conference arrangement in Australia.
 127

hers.l It was W. C. White who was the prime mover when it came to

union organization with its departmental integration of auxiliary

organizations. He approved of A. T. Robinson's plan in South Africa.

The Australasian Union had endorsed him as its first president. In

1901 he was to have a marked impact on the direction of

reorganization. Each of these innovations involved the integration of

the auxiliary organizations into the conference administrative

structure. Ellen White opposed none of these initiatives. She did

not refer to the establishment of departments within the conference

structure as consolidation or centralization.^

There were a number of reasons why the integration of

departments into the conference structure was not opposed by Ellen

White. First, she recognized the difference between control and co­

ordination. If the church was to accomplish its mandate--to take the

gospel to the world--it would be necessary to co-ordinate its

activities so that broad objectives could be set and strategies could

be worked out. This process needed to be worked through in a context

which enhanced the complimentary rather than the competitive nature of

^An example of a difference between them had to do with the

consolidation of the publishing institutions of the church. W. C.
White had been a member of the committee between 1889 and 1891 which
formulated the proposal for consolidation of the publishing
institutions between. Ellen White firmly renounced that proposal.

^The officers of the General Conference and Foreign Mission

Board did regard the integration of auxiliary organizations with the
general organization as centralization at the time when A. T. Robinson
made his proposal In South Africa in 1892. Their response showed that
they were convinced that any move to do away with independent
auxiliary organizations was a move toward centralization. See 0. A.
Olsen to A. T. Robinson, 25 October 1892, RG 11, LB 8, GCAr. See also
pages 79-80 above.
 128

each department. She said in this regard that "the law of reciprocal

dependence and influence" was to be "recognized and obeyed.

Second the church was one great whole. Certainly diversity

was to be recognized and respected. She insisted that as far as

institutions were concerned their day-to-day operation was a matter of

their own control. But when it came to the "broad lines" she was

concerned that the church maintain its sense of world-wide mission in

unity. She stated her concept of oneness most clearly just before

reorganization in 1901. She wrote:

It has been presented to me that every department of the work is

to be united in one great whole. The work of God is to prepare a
people to stand before the Son of Man at His coming, and this work
should be a unit. The work that is to fit a people to stand firm
in the last great day must not be a divided work.^

The third reason why Ellen White could approve of the

departmental idea was the time frame in which it was introduced. Had

the idea to integrate departments at General Conference level been

advanced in the early or mid-1890s when there was no corresponding

plan to decentralize administrative control by the implementation of,

for example, union conferences, it would have undoubtedly been

rejected. But since the department idea had been first tried on the

conference level in South Africa, and later on the union level in

Australia, opportunity had been given for some experimentation so that

by the time it came to the General Conference in 1901, a model was

^■Ellen G. White, "The Medical Missionary Work and the Gospel

Ministry," MS 167, 1899, EGWB-AU.

^Ellen G. White, "Sanitarium Chapel talk," MS 62, 1900, EGWB-

AU. See also Ellen G. White to My Dear Brethren, 12 July 1900, Letter
102, 1900, EGWB-AU.
 129

available which could be adapted to the needs of the church on a

global scale.

Conclusion

The years between 1888 and 1897--the years when 0. A. Olsen

was president of the General Conference--saw the continuation of the

growth that had begun in the 1870s and 1880s as the church responded

to its vision and mission. That growth had at least four dimensions:

(1) It was numerical--new members were attracted to the church,

particularly in the mission fields. (2) It was geographical--the

church commenced working in at least one new overseas country each

year, and in most years, three or four new countries. (3) It was

organizational--three new auxiliary organizations were established,

and those that had existed at the beginning of the period were

themselves spawning auxiliary organizations and becoming more complex.

(4) It was institutional--no period in the history of the Seventh-day

Adventist Church has ever seen a more spectacular rate of

institutional expansion than the 1890s.

Though it could be expected that the church would look with

considerable satisfaction on the developments that were taking place,

the organization and its administration were not equipped to cope with

its own growth. Lack of role clarity between the various

organizations, continuing centralization of decision making

prerogative, financial shortage, dispute over the purpose and control

of institutions, the question of the authority of the General

Conference, competition for scarce resources between the church in

North America and the expanding missionary enterprize of the church-­

 130

all these problems were directly related to the success of the church

as it responded to its commitment to preach the gospel to the world.

There were some attempts to alleviate the administrative

problems. In North America, the plan of dividing the geographical

territory into districts was implemented. That plan was voted while

W. C. White was acting as General Conference president. The districts

in North America at no time had constituencies, however, and their

decision-making prerogatives continued to be closely controlled by the

General Conference. White was also closely involved in two other

major initiatives which were to have considerable bearing on the

direction that organization was to take in 1901. Significantly, both

of those initiatives arose in the context and in response to the needs

of the mission field.

First, he gave his approval to the concept of having the

auxiliary organizations integrated into the conference structure of

the church in the experiment of A. T. Robinson in South Africa. He

may not have agreed with all of the finer details of Robinson's plan,

but he did approve of the concept.

Second, he was the "father" of union organization in

Australia. The Australasian experiment represented the first time

that a level of organization other than a local conference or the

General Conference had a constituency--that is, it had executive

powers which were granted by the levels of organization "below" it,

and not by the General Conference. Even so, the president of the new

Australasian union, W. C. White, was appointed by the General

Conference as superintendent of district seven.

 131

The growth, the administrative problems, and the

organizational innovations that had occurred during Olsen's tenure set

the stage for the developments which were to come in the next six

years. At the General Conference session of 1897 there was again an

intentional attempt at General Conference level to reorganize the

structure of the church--a move which would culminate in 1901-1903

with what Ellen White was to call an "entire new organization.

^Ellen G. White, "Talk of Mrs E. G. White before

Representative Brethren in the College Library, April 1, 1901, 2:30
P.M.,” MS 43a, 1901, EGWB-AU.
 CHAPTER III

TOWARDS REORGANIZATION: 1897-1903

Introduction

By 1897 it was widely recognized that radical organizational

change was necessary. During the preceding decade each specific

development in organization--such as the district arrangement in North

America, the experiment in South Africa, and the organization of the

Australasian Union Conference--had been part of a continuum which was

to culminate in reorganization at the General Conference session in

1901. Yet no General Conference session since 1888 had held the

potential for such revolutionary changes in attitude towards

organizational reform as did the session in 1897.1

Even Olsen recognized that something had to happen. He had

^In the foreword to a pamphlet written in 1914, C. C. Crisler

nominated five General Conference sessions as pivotal in the
development of the principles related to organization in the church.
Those sessions were 1860, "when the proposal was made to organize the
Review and Herald Office into a publishing association": 1873, "when
the question of leadership was brought before our people"; 1888, "when
the first steps were taken toward dividing General Conference
territory into District or union conferences"; 1897, "when a wise
distribution of responsibility was called for"; and 1901, "when a
further distribution of responsibility was advocated and successfully
brought about." Crisler saw organizational developments as a
continuum from 1897 to 1901. He pointed out that "in all these
crises, the principles of organization adopted in the early days of
our denominational history have been found wholly adequate to meet the
needs of an ever-expanding work, and have thus been 'strengthened,
established, and settled1" (C. C. Crisler, The Value of Organization:
An Historical Study [ n.p., 1914], 3).

132
 133

demonstrated over the years of his leadership that he did not know

what was needed in order to rationalize an administrative structure

which could accommodate and facilitate the evangelistic and missionary

zeal of the church. By 1897 he was prepared to admit, however, that

urgent change was necessary. In his opening presidential address to

the session he said,

This Conference will be called upon to lay plans that are

broad and deep. The third angel's message is to encompass the
world; therefore it is highly important that efforts should be
made wisely to distribute the responsibility connected with such
work in order that every part may receive its proper share of
attention. This is a time to go forward, and not backward. It is
a time to enlarge on every hand.^

It was time for new initiatives. The impact of the burgeoning

missionary expansion of the church could no longer be disregarded.

There was a sense of vitality and urgency in the church at large. But

the rapid rate of growth produced by that vitality was placing

inordinate pressure on an inadequate administrative system and

method.^

^•G. C. Tenney, "Proceedings at the Conference," RH, 9 March

1897, 152.
O
^Despite the rapid growth of the church outside North
America, the Foreign Mission Board was still manned by persons who had
almost no extended work experience outside North America. W. C. White
expressed his mother's concern at that situation. In a letter to the
members of the Foreign Mission Board, he boldly informed them that she
had "expressed great sorrow bordering on indignation that the Board
was so largely made up of men who knew little or nothing of
experience in mission fields," and who, despite this, "felt prepared
to criticize and condemn the plans and efforts of those struggling
with difficulties in the mission fields." White informed the board
that his mother wondered why such a situation was necessary when many
had returned home to North America having "done acceptable service in
mission fields" (W. C. White to the Foreign Mission Board, 21 November
1897, LB 11A, EGWO-DC).
 134

The 1897 General Conference Session

Probably because of the anticipated pivotal nature of the

General Conference session in 1897 and because of his frustration over

the failure of the sessions in 1893 and 1895 to make what he

considered to be essential organizational and administrative reforms,

W. C. White travelled from Australia to attend the session. He came

as the president of the Australasian Union Conference. His mother

remained in Australia.

At that session, held at Union College in Nebraska, White was

able to express in person his concerns for the missionary enterprize

of the church and the need for a reorganization. He and his mother

had been in Australia for six years, and although there was continuous

correspondence between themselves and the officers and boards of the

General Conference, there had not been personal contact between them

and the General Conference leaders except when Olsen visited Australia

at the time of the organization of the Australasian Union in 1894.

White took the opportunity, therefore, to recite the story of the

organization of the union conference in Australia. By that time the

union conference had been operating successfully for three years.

Surprisingly, the General Conference Bulletin for 1897 does

not indicate that White was exceptionally outspoken in the regular

business sessions of the conference. That there was a great deal of

discussion outside the context of official sessions of the conference

is indicated by a letter which White sent to his mother in order to

inform her regarding the session proceedings. In that letter he

confided that "the best features of the meeting" could not "be
 135

reported in the Bulletin.” He was hopeful, however, that the

principles that were discussed had been sufficiently implanted in

order to "develop and bear fruit for the kingdom of God."^

After the session was over, W. C. White travelled to Battle

Creek and stayed there for some weeks in order to canvass the need for

reorganization of the church in the various committees of the General

Conference and its auxiliary organizations. At one meeting of the

General Conference Association, he chastised the members of the

committee. As he saw it, too much time was being devoted to detail.

While attention to detail may have been necessary it was his concern

that committees at General Conference level should be free to concern

themselves with broad principles, leaving finer details to those who

were closer to the task at hand. He made it clear that details should

be left to those "individuals whose duty it was to do the actual

work." When men had been selected who had the confidence of the

committee, White insisted that "they should be allowed to go forward

and do the best they can."^ Each committee had become so involved in

trying to sort out conflicts of interest between themselves and in

XW. C. White to Ellen G. White, 8 March, 1897, LB 11, EGWO-DC.

In this letter White also confided that his deepest regret was that
"we [the session delegates] did not break away from the old lines more
fully." He was anticipating the events of 1901 but they did not
eventuate in 1897. Despite the initiatives that he had taken with
organization, White succeeded in having himself removed from
administrative responsibility at this session. A. G. Daniells was
appointed as president of the Australasian Union Conference. This was
done at White's request. Given the advancing age of his mother and
her standing in the denomination, he had decided that it was necessary
for him to devote his full time to her assistance. See Valentine, "A.
G. Daniells," 85.

2GCA Pro, 19 March 1897, RG 3, GCAr.

 136

trying to define the work of employees so closely according to their

respective areas of interest and emphasis, that those appointed to do

the work were either stifled to the point of inaction or had adopted

an attitude of complete disregard for the multiple instructions that

they were receiving from headquarters. They were simply doing what

they considered to be the best in the circumstances.^ Such was

especially the case in the mission fields which were far removed from

Battle Creek. No doubt White's concern came directly from his earlier

experience in Europe and more recently in Australia.

But W. C. White was not the only one working for

organizational reform at the General Conference session in 1897. The

same men who had created such an impact in 1888 with their preaching

on righteousness by faith and the law in Galatians were again active

in 1897. On this occasion the burden of A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner,

and W. W. Prescott was, like that of White, reorganization. Unlike

White, however, the background for their concern was not the

missionary enterprize of the church or experimentation with a form of

organization that was proving to be successful in the pragmatic

situation. Also unlike W. C. White, their concern for reorganization

arose in the first place from their theological positions. But

despite different rationale for organizational reform, common

objectives brought Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, and White together into

an alliance which was to remain until the major rift between J. H.

Kellogg and the leaders of the General Conference occurred in 1902.

H j . C. White to D. A. Robinson, 3 August 1896, LB 10, EGWO-DC;

Ellen G. White to A. 0. Tait, 27 August 1896, Letter 100, 1896, EGWO-
DC.
 137

The most influential exponent of a what can best be termed a

christocentric model of organization for the denomination was Alonzo

T. Jones.^ Jones's stature in the church had been established largely

through the impact that he and E. J. Waggoner had made on those who

attended the General Conference session of 1888, through the editorial

positions that he held after 1888, and by his ability as a speaker.^

After 1888, particularly in the early 1890s, Ellen White seemed to

have no hesitation in stating that both Jones and Waggoner had been

■klones is often referred to below as representative of those

persons who were aligned to a christocentric model of organization.
The term "christocentric model," is used in distinction from the term
"eschatological-missiological model." The latter designation is used
to describe the form of organization which arose from the theological
presuppositions of those allied with Daniells. Daniells's name is
used more than any other as a representative of that group. The reason
for the choice of terminology is explained in the text.

^George R. Knight has written a biographical account of

Jones's life and ministry in From 1888 to Apostasy: The Case of A. T.
Jones. Not only was Jones a popular speaker, but for a period he was
editor of three of the church's most influential publications. From
1885 to 1889, he was co-editor of Signs of the Times with E. J.
Waggoner; from 1887 to 1897, he was editor or co-editor of the
American Sentinel: and from 1897 until 1901, he was editor-in-chief of
the RH. Before Jones became editor of the leading publication in the
denomination, the RH, he had a "conviction" that "at some time" he
would "be head of the 'Review and Herald'"--a matter which seemed
"very clear" to the members of the General Conference Committee. That
he was able to fulfill the expectations of those who appointed him to
the position was assured when Irwin reported to Ellen White early in
1898 that the RH had "gained over two thousand [subscriptions] since
Elder Jones became connected with it." He added that subscribers were
"much better pleased with the general tone of the paper" (G. A. Irwin
to Ellen G. White, 13 October 1897, RG 11, LB 18, GCAr; G. A. Irwin to
Ellen G. White, 30 January 1898, RG 11, LB 18, GCAr). Between 1888
and 1901 Jones wrote at least 534 articles which were published in the
RH. In addition he prepared sermons, books, pamphlets, and many other
articles which were published in other denominational publications.
"Review and Herald Research," [Published articles of A. T. Jones,
1888-1901], SDAHC-AU.
 138

used by the Lord. In 1888, W. C. White had called Jones "a young

giant.

Righteousness by faith and the meaning of "law" in Galatians

had not been the only topics of interest to Jones in 1888. Towards

the end of that year, he first represented the Seventh-day Adventist

Church before the United States Senate Committee on Education and

Labor in an effort to defeat the passage of legislation which

proposed that Sunday be a national rest day. The bill, which had been

sponsored by Senator H. W. Blair, was considered by Seventh-day

Adventists and other Sabbatarians as a serious threat to their

religious liberty. Jones proved himself an able exponent of the

principles of religious liberty. During the 1890s no other person in

o
the denomination so ably represented that cause.

It was not surprising, therefore, that at the 1897 session of

the General Conference, Jones was appointed as a member of the

executive committee. But it was not only his interest in the theology

of righteousness by faith or the principle of religious liberty that

motivated Jones to accept that appointment. He had developed a

perspective on the nature of the church which required that the

structures of the church reflect certain theological presuppositions.

So strong were Jones’s convictions with regard to his understanding of

the church that, when at the end of 1899 he became convinced that the

^Ellen G. White to Brother and Sister [J. H.] Kellogg, ca.

January 1893, Letter 86a, 1893, EGWB-AU; W. C. White to S. N.
Haskell, 21 June 1888, LB C, EGWO-DC. Compare Knight, From 1888 to
Apostasy. 71-73.

2Ibid., 75-88.
 139

denomination had little intention of making an attempt to reorganize

its administrative structures in line with his conceptions, he

resigned his position on the General Conference executive committee.

He was willing to rejoin the committee only after the reforms of the

1901 General Conference session had been made.

Jones was never afraid to hold and to state his convictions in

a particularly forthright manner. Even so, it was not only the manner

in which he communicated, but the content of his preaching and writing

that gave him such influence. While some may contend that it was a

faulty trait of character that eventually caused him to turn away from

the church--and that contention should not be dismissed altogether--it

should be recognized that it was more the strength of Jones's

theological conviction which compelled him to oppose what he perceived

to be abuses of the New Testament doctrine of the church.^- It was his

contention that the system of organization that was being developed in

the Seventh-day Adventist Church did not sufficiently take into

account theological principles derived from the New Testament.

Together with Waggoner and Prescott, Jones was anxious that a

set of theological principles which arose from consideration of the

priesthood of believers, the headship of Christ, the church as the

body of Christ, and spiritual gifts should determine the form of

organization. He concentrated on those theological images which

emphasized the universal nature of the church. His understanding of

soteriology was foundational to his ecclesiological scheme. In fact,

Waggoner and he endeavored to move the Seventh-day Adventist Church

1Ibid., 12, 159, 176-79, 192.

 140

toward a theological understanding of the church that was more

ontological than functional.^

Given the influence of White, Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott,

many significant changes took place at the 1897 session. The first

was the election of a new General Conference president, George A.

Irwin. Irwin had enjoyed a meteoric rise through the ranks of the

administration of the church. He had become a Seventh-day Adventist

only twelve years before in 1885. By 1889 he was president of the

Ohio conference, in 1895 had been appointed president of District Two,

O
and in 1897 was elected president of the General Conference.

The second significant development in 1897 was an action "that

Union Conferences be organized in Europe and America, as soon as

deemed advisable, and that these Union Conferences hold biennial

sessions, alternating with the General Conference."^ However there is

no record of any discussion of this plan and it must be assumed that

its significance was not taken seriously enough on the floor of the

session.

The third action was taken with reference to a proposal that

"the General Conference territory be divided into three grand

divisions." These divisions were to be "the United States and British

North America," "Europe," and "Australasia." Each was to be known as

■*-See chapter 4 below.

^SDA Encyclopedia. 1976 ed., s.v. "Irwin, George A."

•^GC Bulletin. 1897, 215. When at the 1901 session the

delegates representing the Southern field presented the first memorial
requesting that a district be organized into a union conference, they
referred to this proposal that had been adopted at the 1897 session.
See GC Bulletin. 1901, 67.
 141

a "General Conference." The remaining territory was to be supervised

by the mission board. Very little discussion apart from some fine

tuning of the territorial divisions was undertaken, and any questions

were "answered to the satisfaction of the m e e t i n g . I n line with

this recommendation, presidents were chosen for each of the three

"General Conferences." Further, it was decided that the "presidency

of the General Conference, the presidency of the Mission Board, and

the presidency of the General Conference work in North America, be

placed on three different men."1

2 In actual fact, although a separate

president was chosen for the Foreign Mission Board, one man--George

Irwin--was chosen to be president of the General Conference and the

newly created "General Conference work in North America.

The fourth action apparently engendered the most discussion,

yet it was to prove the least advisable of all. The proposal was made

that the headquarters of the Mission Board be moved to "some Atlantic

State," from there to care for all mission funds and "all mission

fields not included in the three grand divisions." Discussion,

however, was not on the concept of moving--all seemed agreed that this

was the most appropriate way to decentralize--nor was it on the new

organizational concept that the organized territory of the General

Conference was to have no jurisdiction nor administrative interest in

most of the world's area and population. The major point of

discussion was whether the new location of the Foreign Mission Board

1GC Bulletin. 1897, 215.

2Ibid.
 142

should be Chicago or, as the proposal recommended, on the Atlantic.^

Other proposals passed at the 1897 session were the expansion

of the executive committee to thirteen and the discontinuation of the

book committee. In the record of the session, these proposals were

preceded by a preamble which stated:

In consideration of the rapid extension and varied character

of the work of the General Conference, we acknowledge the
inconsistency which has been so clearly pointed out to us, of
centering so many responsibilities at Battle Creek, and having so
many matters of a varied character, and relating to the work in
widely different localities, submitted for consideration to a few
men who largely compose our General Conference committees and
boards. We also see that it is not wise to choose one man to
preside over the varied interests and extensive territory of the
General Conference.1
2

Despite sharp rebukes from the pen of Ellen White, and perhaps

even the best intentions to the contrary, administrative bodies

overseeing the church and its auxiliary organizations had been

continuing to centralize. But in 1897 the church demonstrated that it

was willing to try to solve the problem. Reporting the "doings of the

conference" afterwards, G. C. Tenney said that the delegates felt as

they approached the session that "some decisive steps must be taken to
O
obviate" the "growing" tendency toward centralization.

Tenney also noted that the subject of authority

received considerable attention. . . . It was clearly demonstrated

that there is no rightful authority but that which comes from God;
that each one is accountable directly to him for the use of his
talents; and that while organization for the purpose of concerted

1Ibid., 215, 230.

2Ibid., 215.

2G. C. Tenney, "Doings of the Conference," RH, 16 March 1897,

169.
 143

action is proper, the control of one man's mind or strength by

another man is opposed to the principles of the gospel.^

It was the presence of W. C. White and the preaching of A. T. Jones,

E. J. Waggoner, and W. W. Prescott which shaped the discussion of the

principles of organization. It seemed that at the 1897 General

Conference session, more than at any session since 1888, the

principles of the gospel were being discussed. The difference was

that now they were being discussed in the context of organizational

reform.

1898-1900

The European Union

In response to the call for decentralization and the

organization of union conferences in Europe and North America "as soon

as deemed advisable," a European Union Conference was organized the

following year.^ At meetings held in Hamburg, Germany, in July 1898,

under the chairmanship of G. A. Irwin, president of the General

Conference in North America, a union conference organization was

initiated in Europe. 0. A. Olsen, former president of the General

Conference, was "appointed" president. An executive committee of five

was chosen. Apparently the European constituency had the prerogative

to elect their own executive committee, but they were not given the

authority to elect the president of the union. He remained1

2

1 Ibid.

2GC Bulletin. 1897, 215.

 144

accountable to the General Conference in North America. ^

Although the 1897 General Conference session had established

three General Conferences, it was still understood that the president

in North America held priority as far as administration of the world

church was concerned. There may have been some lingering pockets of

concern that too much independence was being given to the new "General

Conferences" in Europe and Australia. There had been talk of

secession when the Australasian Union was organized in 1894, and there

was probably the same talk when the European Union was organized in

1898.1
2

The Financial Predicament

Despite the innovations of 1897 it very quickly became obvious

that the changes that had been made were insufficient to cope with the

grave administrative problems at denominational headquarters in Battle

Creek with their ramifications for the whole denomination. Nowhere

was that predicament more keenly felt than by those who were

attempting to maintain equity in the treasury.

The expansion and multiplication of institutions, the growing

missionary contingent, and the maintenance of church structures had

placed immense financial pressure on the General Conference. The

1For an outline of the history of organization in Europe, see

L. R. Conradi, "Development of a General Organization in Europe," RG
21, 1920 Conradi L. R. Folder, GCAr. The appointment of the
president at these early Union sessions was really a formality. The
presidents of Europe and Australasia had been appointed, in fact, by
the General Conference session as presidents of the General Conference
for the respective territories and were probably not elected as such
by the constituency.

2GC Bulletin. 1913, 108.

 145

division of the territory of the General Conference into districts had

divided the financial priorities of conference administrators. Both

administrators and church members were becoming more localized in

their outlook as the 1890s progressed.

Olsen had recalled in 1896 that, beginning in 1892, funds were

more freely contributed to the General Conference "than had ever been

received before." Then followed the General Conference of 1893, that

"remarkable meeting" at which it was "first advocated that the latter

rain had commenced" and that Seventh-day Adventists were proclaiming

their message with "a loud voice." Subsequently, the years 1893 and

1894 were most "favorable" years and so much was given that Olsen

recollected that they "had an abundance for everything that was needed

to advance the cause," so much so that at times they "were perplexed

how to properly care for the money" that was on hand. Olsen lamented,

however, that "from that time on things have been going the other

way."^

The financial depression which had begun in 1893 had

aggravated the situation. Even though, according to Olsen, the

effects of that depression were not fully realized in 1893 and 1894,

they were being felt in 1896 and 1897. Not only was that the case in

the United States but right around the world. Olsen described the

economic climate in North America in 1896 as being "just about as bad1

^0. A. Olsen to W. W. Prescott, 30 August 1896, RG 11, LB 16,

GCAr. The records of the period 1892-94 do not paint quite the rosy
picture that Olsen seems to recall. In October 1894, for instance,
Olsen himself had called the attention of the General Conference
Committee to the "very grave financial problems" that were being faced
by the General Conference at that time. GCC Min, 16 October 1894, RG
1, GCAr.
 146

as it possibly can be."3 In Australia heroic efforts were being made

to establish the Avondale School for Christian workers despite a

recession which had been described by Ellen White as early as 1893.^

When Irwin assumed the presidency in 1897, he had to face the

financial predicament immediately. Within a few weeks the situation

was so desperate that he wrote to N. W. Allee that the General

Conference was "living from hand to mouth, so to speak." He told

Allee that "some days we get in two or three hundred dollars, and

other days we have nothing." On the particular day that he was

writing, he lamented that the treasury was "practically empty,” even

though there were at that time "a number of calls for means."3

In a circular letter to all conference presidents written the

next day, Irwin quoted a statement regarding the desperate situation

of the General Conference from I. H. Evans, who was at the time

president of the General Conference Association and was later to be

the treasurer of the General Conference. The statement read:

Our finances are in a very embarrassing state. . . . On our

audit of last year we have overdrawn on the Review and Herald

^In 1896 Olsen wrote to Prescott that "the general financial

condition of this country is just about as bad as it possibly can be.
The presidential campaign is aggravating the situation, making it
worse than it otherwise would be. The daily papers give a doleful
aspect of the outlook. One firm after another, of long standing, and
powerful in strength are [sic] going to the wall. Three out of five
banks in Lansing, Mich., have recently closed. Everything seems to be
in a very shaky condition. So far our institutions have stood the
strain remarkably, and I hope that, in the good providence of God,
they will be preserved from being humiliated before the world" (0. A.
Olsen to W. W. Prescott, 30 August 1896, RG 11, LB 16, GCAr).

3See Ellen G. White to Brother and Sister [J. H.) Kellogg,

ca. January 1893, Letter 86a, EGWB-AU.

3G. A. Irwin to N. W. Allee, 5 May 1897, RG 11, LB 18, GCAr.

 147

$12,500. We have on our list of audits unpaid over $5000 [sic],

so that we owe on last year's work nearly $18,000.1
3
*

The seriousness of the situation can only be properly

understood in the light of Evans's continuing remarks:

We have paid as little to our workers this year--since

January--as possible. Many have not enough to live on and are in
most embarrassing circumstances. . . . We must have at least
$44,000.00 per annum more than we have been receiving, as we have
nearly $15,000.00 interest on notes we owe the brethren.^

Despite concerted effort by General Conference leaders, the

situation did not improve substantially. While there were some

periods when the predicament was not as desperate as it was at other

times, at all times the situation was out of control. The financial

statement for 1899 showed that at the beginning of that year the

General Conference had only $55.33 cash on hand. The same report

showed that by 1 October of the same year there was an operating

deficit of $9,529.74.1 At the beginning of 1901 the General

Conference was $41,589.11 in deficit. In August the deficit was still

$39,600. It comprised a debt to the General Conference Association

($14,000), an unspecified loan ($3,000), debts to depositors ($6,600),

wages due to laborers for 1900 ($6,000), and wages due to laborers

1G. A. Irwin to W. M, Healey, 6 May 1897, RG 11, LB 18, GCAr.

■
‘Ibid. In the same letter Irwin announced that the General
Conference committee had set apart "May 29 and 30 as special days of
fasting and prayer," and then added that the special day of spiritual
refreshing would be "closing with a donation for the benefit of the
General Conference." In July it was recorded in the minutes of the
General Conference executive committee that a minister by the name of
Goodrich working in Quebec had actually not received any wages for a
full year. GCC Min, 27 July 1897, RG 1, GCAr.

3GCC Min, 10 October 1899, RG 1, GCAr.

 148

from 1 January to 30 June 1901 ($10,000).!

Because of the chronic shortage of operating capital, nothing

was being done to repay debts that had been incurred in order to

establish various institutions. Percy Magan, who realized that part

of the problem lay in the ease with which institutions borrowed money

and the ease with which church members lent it to them, charged that

"all our institutions" had been in "the borrowing business." He

advocated that it was time for them "to quit" borrowing. But not

only were institutions to cease borrowing: church members were to

cease dabbling in "the lending business." Had the members not been

"in the lending business," then it was certain that the institutions

"would never have been in the borrowing business.

In October 1900, when the plan to sell Christ's Object Lessons

in order to relieve the debts of the educational institutions was

suggested, it was estimated that the combined debt of the educational

institutions alone was approximately $350,000.! ^ G. Daniells

further estimated that at that time the debt of all North American

institutions combined came to over one million dollars. At the

session of 1901 he said: "We talk about great indebtedness in America.

We have large debts. We owe in America $1,250,000 on our*

3

^A. G. Daniells to Members of the General Conference

Committee, 2 August 1901, RG 11, LB 24, GCAr. See also A. G.
Daniells to J. E. Jayne, 3 August 1901, RG 11, LB 24, GCAr.

^Percy T. Magan, "Denominational Debts," RH, 11 April 1899,

235-36.

3GCC Min, 16 October 1900, RG 1, GCAr.

 149

institutions. That is a large indebtedness.

The situation overseas was equally critical. The work in

Australia was struggling. Avondale School for Christian Workers was

being established and efforts were being made to establish a major

sanitarium in Sydney. In South Africa it was lamented that the

conference had over-extended its capacity to operate institutions.

The Wessells family had generously invested money from the sale of

their property in the construction of institutions for which there was

no longer sufficient income, nor a large enough church constituency to

support such expansive undertakings.

The greatest crisis occurred in Scandinavia. Christiana

Publishing House had borrowed heavily in order to operate its

business. When 0. A. Olsen wrote to the General Conference in 1899,

he pointed out that while economic conditions were favorable in the

early part of the decade, Christiana had increased its floating debt

considerably. He reminded the officers that at times Christiana had

even undertaken to advance wages and other expenses on behalf of the

Foreign Mission Board and the General Conference. Olsen explained,

however, that the funds to do that had been obtained by adding to the

floating debt of the institution, as the publishing house "did not

have the money at hand." The workers were supplied with their needs,

and the publishing house fully expected "to be reimbursed by the

General Conference." Olsen tried to lay the blame for the situation

at the feet of the General Conference in order to receive from them

the needed funds. Probably some of the blame should have been

XGC Bulletin. 1901, 76.

 150

assigned there, but there were other mitigating factors.3

The General Conference apparently did accept some

responsibility for the situation, but since there were no funds of any

kind available to help Christiana, a special appeal had to be made to

the churches in the United States. At the 1901 session of the General

Conference, Daniells, W. C. White, and Olsen each made impassioned

appeals on the basis of the principle of helping those in trouble.

Neither Daniells nor Olsen made any reference to the possibility of

mismanagement. White referred to the possibility that some were

thinking that "those people over there" were "largely to blame for the

trouble" that they were in. But he contended that such was not the

point at all. Despite whoever was responsible, the duty of Christians

was to aid those in dire situations. Were they to think as business

men or as Christians? If Christians, then they should be willing to

O
save others from the "results of their mistakes.

In 1903 when the crisis at Christiana had been averted through

the generosity of the churches in the United States, it was admitted

that the situation had been brought about by mismanagement. At the

General Conference session in that year, L. R. Conradi stated

unequivocally that "things were not well managed in Christiana" and

that the real situation was "well known."3 In a statement on 3 March

1903, Daniells lamented that the church had "to pay the debts of bad

30. A. Olsen to the Members of the General Conference

Committee, Foreign Mission Board, and the G. C. Association, 20
September 1899, RG 9, LB 6, GCAr.

2Sten 1901, 20 April 1901, 3 p.m., RG 0, GCAr, 76, 81, 93, 98.

3Sten 1903, 11 April 1903, 7 p.m., RG 0, GCAr.

 151

management." What aggravated Daniells even further was that even when

the denomination had repaid some $66,000 there was nothing to show for

it--"not a dollar's worth of property in return.

There was no single reason for the continuing financial crisis

during the 1890s. As was the case with the Christiana Publishing

House, it might be charged that the basis of the whole problem was bad

management. But if it was bad management, it was not confined only to

those in positions of financial responsibility. Veteran pastor,

missionary, evangelist, and leader, Stephen Haskell, had a "policy of

reaching out on borrowed capitol fsic 1 and then pressing for means to

relieve the strain every little while." That policy "about

discouraged" the churches where he was working.^ In reference to

another situation, the manager of the Pacific Press lamented, somewhat

later, that a serious financial problem "might all have been avoided

had brother Haskell been a little more explicit.

Even General Conference presidents had some unfortunate

-*-A. G. Daniells, [No title], 3 March 1903, RG 11, LB 30,

GCAr, 477. Daniells reflected: "Two years ago we had sixty thousand
dollars to raise on the Christiana debt. All but six thousand five
hundred dollars of this amount has been donated. The last payment is
to be made next July. . . . But after paying this $66,000 to the
banks and business houses of Christiana there are still two mortgages
on the building covering its entire value. So we have nothing but the
honor of being honest in return for this great sum. How much sixty-
six thousand dollars would have helped the cause in the mission field
if it could have been used for fresh work instead of being used to pay
the debts of bad management for which we have not a dollars worth of
property in return."

^R. C. Porter to 0. A. Olsen, 22 January 1892, RG 9, 0. A.

Olsen Folder 1, GCAr.

■^C. H. Jones to 0. A. Olsen, 26 June 1894, RG 9, 0. A. Olsen

Folder 3, GCAr.
 152

business attitudes. In an executive committee meeting in 1895, 0. A.

Olsen explained the policy of the General Conference regarding the

progress of the work.

Faith and not sight, is the policy of the General Conference.

. . . It has not been the policy of the General Conference to
wait until funds were in sight for supporting a work before
entering upon it.3

Olsen substantiated his attitude by quoting a statement made by Ellen

White and published only a few days earlier. She had said that the

work should be pushed forward without "waiting to see the funds in the

treasury" before it was undertaken. "God forbid," she continued,

"that when his providence summons us to enter the fields white already

to harvest, our steps should be retarded by the cry, 'Our treasury is

exhausted.'"^

In 1897, having just assumed the presidency, Irwin stated that

"while he believed that we should adhere to business principles as

closely as possible," he considered that it would be "detrimental to

the best interests of the work to adopt a worldly policy." What he

meant was that it was not necessary to have money before spending it.

For him faith was to "play an important part" in all that was done.

He quoted exactly the same statement from Ellen White that Olsen had

read almost two years earlier.3

A few weeks later, Irwin wrote to Daniells, noting that the

1GCC Min, 19 July 1895, RG 1, GCAr.

^Ibid. See also Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies to

Ministers and Workers-No. 3 (Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald,
1895), 50-51.

3GCA Pro, 15 March 1897, RG 3, GCAr.

 153

"financial situation" had become "very perplexing." He was sure that

a "wrong policy has been pursued until we are reaping the results.

But he did not seem to be aware of exactly which policy was the wrong

one. Irwin could discern the situation but he could not understand

the problem nor propose a solution.

Even Daniells, after becoming General Conference president,

spoke against conferences holding money in reserve. He said that he

knew of conferences that had "from one to ten thousand dollars in

their treasuries," but he did not believe that it was right to keep

money in reserve when it was urgently needed. He believed that the

time was coming when no conference would feel free to hold money in

reserve. He was hopeful that the people would have such compassion on

those in "regions beyond" that they would gladly give every surplus

dollar to such needy enterprises "without d e l a y . I t is somewhat

difficult to reconcile Daniells's insistence that conferences not hold

reserves with his insistence that they should not go into debt.

The rationale for these financial policies is not difficult to

discover. In 1891, when answering the charge that more was being

attempted by the General Conference than could be managed, Olsen

replied,

We are entrusted with a great and important work,--a message to

every kindred, tongue, and people, and there certainly is no time
to retrench and delay. The harvest is fast being ripened for the
day of God, and the wheat must be garnered for the kingdom of God.
The chaff will soon be given to the flames. May we all sense the

■'■G. A. Irwin to A. G. Daniells, 21 June 1897, RG 11, LB 18,

GCAr.

^A. G. Daniells to H. R. Johnson, 17 July 1901, RG 11, LB 24,

GCAr.
 154

responsibility of the present now, and quit ourselves like men.

In a short time the labor will be over, the world warned, the work
accomplished, and God's remnant people made ready to meet their
Lord.

Irwin similarly had an eschatological foundation for his

financial policy. While it was his intention to be as economical as

possible in the management of the work, that policy could only be

adhered to as it was "consistent with as rapid an extension of the

work as the nearness of the end demands."^

Meanwhile, Daniells, who was in Australia in the late 1890s,

was endeavoring to abide by the "no-debt" policy which was to be the

mark of his General Conference administration and the spark which

ignited the clashes with Kellogg in 1902-1904. He admitted a certain

discomfort with his position, however. He feared that rigidly

adhering to a "no-debt" policy could be retarding progress by "putting

on the brakes" on expenditure. He wrote to Olsen that with his horror

of debts and a fear of doing wrong by putting on the brakes, he had

"for a long time been much worried and perplexed.

Daniells, Olsen, and Irwin all took what may be considered to

be some unwise financial positions because they were driven by an

eschatological vision and a sense of mission. Financial conservatism

was very difficult to reconcile with such a view.

^■0. A. Olsen, "An Appeal in Behalf of Foreign Missions," RH .

29 September 1891, 602. See also 0. A. Olsen to W. C. White, 9
December 1895, RG 11, LB 14a, GCAr.

^G. A. Irwin to W. M. Healey, 6 May 1897, RG 11, LB 18, GCAr.

^A. G. Daniells to 0. A. Olsen, 2 August 1895, RG 9, 0. A.

Olsen Folder 4, GCAr.
 155

Missionary Activity

The inability of the denomination to financially support its

growth was having an effect on its whole missionary enterprize. It

has not been often realized that in the last five years of the

nineteenth century there was the slackening of missionary activity by

the denomination. At the 1899 General Conference session, Allen Moon,

president of the Foreign Mission Board reported that

during the last two years we have opened up no new work in any
part of the world. It has been an impossibility. There have been
demands for opening the work in China. That work ought to have
been opened a year ago, yet we have been utterly unable to do
anything toward opening it.^

Not only were the financial and administrative crises at home

having an effect on the church's ability to commence work in new

areas, but they were preventing the placement of new missionaries in

the field. Between 1895 and 1900 the number of missionaries being

sent from the shores of North America decreased markedly in comparison

to the increasing number during the first half of the decade. In

1895, one hundred missionaries were sent from the United States to

twenty-nine countries. In each succeeding year, the number was

reduced until, at the General Conference session in 1901, the

president of the Foreign Mission Board reported that "during the

present board's administration" [two years], only sixty-eight new

workers had been sent to foreign fields. He added that twenty-three

had been returned for "various reasons.

1GC Bulletin. 1899, 73.

^Since the term of the Mission Board was two years, in this
case, 1899-1901, approximately 34 new missionaries (men, women, and
adult children) had been sent out in each of the years 1899 and 1900.
 156

The failure to commence any new work between 1897 and 1899 and

the decrease in the number of missionaries being sent abroad between

1895 and 1900 does not appear to have been the result of any marked

decrease in the church's eschatological or missiological vision.^

Indeed, the effects of the discussion of righteousness by faith and

the renewed vision which it produced for many of the church leaders

GC Bulletin. 1901, 96. The figures for the years previous to that
were, 1888, 23; 1889, 23; 1890, 12; 1891, 33; 1892, 18; 1893, 86;
1894, 62; 1895, 100; 1896, 64; 1897, 43; 1898, 33. "Missionaries Sent
Out by the General Conference, and Foreign Mission Board of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church,” RG 21, Correspondence: Missionaries
Sent Abroad--1918 Folder, GCAr.

1-Borge Schantz has contended that the primary motivation for

mission in Ellen White's writings was "the great commission." He also
recognizes, love, mercy, pity, and eschatology as motives, and lists
the saving of individual souls, the planting of churches, the warning
of the world and glory to God as goals for mission in Ellen White. He
does not demonstrate adequately the relationship between the
eschatological motive and the way in which the great commission was
interpreted by Ellen White and the Seventh-day Adventist Church
contemporary with her. Schantz, "The Development of Seventh-day
Adventist Missionary Thought," 556-627. There was in the 1890s some
innovation with respect to social concern as part of the Adventist
outreach program. It was known as "Christian help work." Ellen G.
White, "Work for the Fallen," MS 14a, 1897, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White
to Gilbert Collins, 9 June 1897, Letter 33, 1897, EGWB-AU; Ellen G.
White, "Come up to the Help of the Lord," MS 71, 1898, EGWB-AU; Ellen
G. White to A. J. Sanderson, 29 August 1898, Letter 68, 1898, EGWB-AU;
Ellen G. White to Mrs A. E. Wessels, 1 December 1898, Letter 111,
1898, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to John H. Kellogg, 6 January 1899,
Letter 4, 1899, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to Iowa Conference, 28 August
1902, Letter 136, 1902, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to J. Edson White, 6
May 1908, Letter 140, 1908, EGWB-AU. John Harvey Kellogg was
particularly concerned with the need for a heightened social concern
among Seventh-day Adventists. General Conference Bulletin Published
Quarterly. October 1895. 569. Although he himself may not have been
so much motivated by an eschatological consciousness, others saw the
alleviation of social ills as a vital part of the message that they
were supposed to be proclaiming even though its ultimate goal was
eschatological. Ellen G. White to Peter Wessels, 17 February 1897,
Letter 116, 1897, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White, "True Christianity," MS
60, 1897, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White, "The Work for Today," MS 17, 1898,
EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to the Brethren in Battle Creek, 6 June 1898,
Letter 51, 1898, EGWB-AU.
 157

should have added greater impetus to the missionary enterprize. A

more likely explanation for the problems is that the centralized

organization as it existed was just not able to cope financially and

administratively with its missionary enterprise. The existence of

those problems may indicate that the impetus for reorganization came

not only from the constraints placed upon the church by its expansion,

but also from a concern that unless organizational changes were made,

the church may not be able to fulfill its perceived commission and

consequently, cease to have a legitimate reason for existence.1

^The missionary program was being stifled because decisions

which should have been made by "those on the ground" had to be
referred to Battle Creek. See W. A. Spicer to A. G. Daniells, 5
October 1893, RG 9, A. G. Daniells Folder 2, GCAr; W. C. White to D.
A. Robinson, 3 August 1896, LB 10, EGWO-DC; A. G. Daniells to E. H.
Gates, 23 May 1901, RG 11, LB 23, GCAr. In his letter to D. A.
Robinson, White focused on the dilemma caused by centralization. In
reference to a "pioneer to a new mission field," he said: "If he
consults with the Board in everything he will be forced sometimes to
vary from instruction. If he does not consult them he will get the
credit of moving independently. Whichever way he does, he will wish
he had done the other." In a letter to Percy Magan, W. C. White said
that "mother has been cautioned not to give sanction to any
arrangement in connection with this [missionary] enterprise by which
one class of men or of institutions shall lay binding restrictions
upon another class of men or institutions; that His servants in one
part of the world should not dictate to or lay restrictions upon His
servants in another part of the great harvest field" (W. C. White to
Percy T. Magan, 8 March 1900, LB 15, EGWRC). Records indicate that
the church continued to enter countries in which it had never
established itself previously. Between 1896 and 1900, eight new
countries were "entered." In 1895 alone, however, official
representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church had commenced to
work in ten countries. Simply listing the countries in which work has
been established has always been a preferred method of ascertaining
the global impact of Seventh-day Adventist work. That such is not
necessarily a reliable manner in which to indicate the health of the
missionary enterprise is demonstrated in the records of the late 1890s
when the establishment of new work in eight countries did not give any
indication that the rate of growth of the foreign missionary
enterprize had slowed by some 66 percent. See "Illuminating
Statistical Facts: No. 8--Countries Entered," RG 29, Claude F. Conrad
Collection, GCAr; Schantz, "The Development of Seventh-day Adventist

ASTR Research Center Library

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

 158

Daniells realized that such a situation confronted the church as he

visited Africa and Europe on his way to the 1901 General Conference

session. In August 1900, while in Europe, he wrote to W. C. White

that

my heart is filled with interest that I can not fsicl express in

behalf of these foreign fields, and I sincerely hope that the next
session of the General Conference will rise to the high and
important position it should take in behalf of these countries. .
. . I see much to encourage u s , and some things that need careful
management in the way of reorganization. . . . In all these places
I have secured all the details I can regarding the work, the same
as I did in Africa, and shall arrange these data for future use if
needed.^

Change was needed not only to accommodate the growth of the past but

to facilitate growth in the future.

Stalemate

Despite the promise of the 1897 General Conference session,

the next four years saw little overt development of organizational

reform at the General Conference. Although Irwin anticipated the 1899

General Conference session by announcing that "this particular

Missionary Thought," 777-80; and "The Political Divisions of the

World," (report prepared by the Office of Archives and Statistics,
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists), RG 29, GCAr. It should
be noted that there are some variations between the different sources.
For purposes of this dissertation, the statistics quoted have been
taken from the last-named source. However, even if either of the
other sources is quoted, the argument regarding the impact of the
slowing of growth is not affected.

-*-A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, 23 August 1900, Incoming

Files, EGWO-DC. With reference to South Africa Daniells wrote, "I
think the African conference should . . . reorganize the work and
adopt a progressive policy which would be calculated to extend the
message in all parts of the field" (A. G. Daniells to G. A. Irwin, 31
July 1900, RG 9, A. G. Daniells Folder 2, GCAr). See also A. G.
Daniells to E. H. Gates, 23 May 1901, RG 11, LB 23, GCAr; A. G.
Daniells to Edith Graham, 24 May 1901, RG 11, LB 23, GCAr.

y b *> rtt • to ;
*v*0
 159

meeting" would be the "most important of all such meetings ever held,

and that the church was "in greater peril" than ever before, there

appears to have been a stalemate as far as progress toward

reorganization was concerned.^ Since it was his first General

Conference session as chairman, Irwin appeared to be more concerned

with matters of procedure than with grappling with a solution to the

issues that were sapping the life blood from the church.^

That does not mean that there was no discussion of the need

for reorganization at the 1899 General Conference session, however.

Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott brought the matter to the attention of

the session in an effort to continue the momentum towards

-*-G. A. Irwin, "The Coming General Conference," RH, 7 February

1899, 90.

^See G. A. Irwin to A. G. Daniells, 10 November 1898, RG 11,

LB 19, GCAr. Irwin appears to have been dependent on Ellen White
insofar as relatively insignificant details were concerned. Yet with
regards to important principles, Irwin was not in the habit of writing
to her very often. Reference to Irwin's letter books while he was
president of the General Conference reveals that often many months
would elapse with no letter from Irwin to Ellen White. This was in
marked contrast to the correspondence habits of Olsen and Daniells.
Perhaps part of the reason was that Irwin was a relatively new
Seventh-day Adventist and had not been enculturated in the same way
that Butler, Olsen, and, later, Daniells had been. Another factor
could have been that Ellen White had been out of the country for six
years by the time Irwin assumed the presidency. He had only been a
Seventh-day Adventist for twelve years. An example of a comparatively
unnecessary dependency was Irwin's inability to decide where the 1899
General Conference session should be held. Even though Ellen White
was in Australia he felt that he had to wait for her decision before
broadcasting the venue. In a letter written to her on 10 November
1898, he requested that she give advice as to where the next General
Conference should be held. At that stage, the session was scheduled
to begin in only two months. The next day he wrote to Olsen that the
session would be held in South Lancaster, Mass., "unless," referring
to any directive that may still come from Ellen White, "we receive
something from Australia to change it." G. A. Irwin to Ellen G.
White, 10 November 1898, RG 11, LB 19, GCAr; and G. A. Irwin to 0. A.
Olsen, 11 November 1898, RG 11, LB 19, GCAr.
 160

reorganization initiated in 1897. Speaking of the grave financial

predicament that had just been described by Allen Moon, president of

the Foreign Mission Board, Jones asked: "Do you think that we, as a

General Conference, shall begin to revolutionize a certain board?"

Implying that such an action would be insufficient to remedy the

situation he answered, "Let the General Conference first be

revolutionized.

Jones's call for reorganization was accompanied by a call for

individual repentance on the part of the leaders of the denomination.

Reorganization was not only a corporate function but also an

individual necessity. He exhorted the delegates that "there is a

dearth of means and there will be a dearth of means just as surely as

those who are connected with the work of God neglect to humble their

hearts. They must fall on the Rock, or that Rock will fall on them,

and grind them to powder.

Following an extended season of prayer in which it is recorded

that A. T. Jones, G. A. Irwin, J. H. Morrison, 0. A. Olsen, Allen

Moon, L. A. Hoopes, X. H. Evans, A. J. Breed, S. H. Lane, and A. F.

Ballenger prayed, Waggoner took the floor and made an appeal for

organizational reform. He was supported by Prescott and Jones.

Although the discussion of organization and matters connected with it

occupied the fourteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth business meetings

XGC Bulletin. 1899, 74.

^Ibid. Waggoner was even more specific. He maintained that

"all there is to it [organization] is for each individual to give
himself over to the Lord, and then the Lord will do with him just as
he wants to, and that all the time" (ibid., 86).
 161

of the session, no significant actions relative to organization were

taken at the 1899 session, however.^

Reflecting on the business meetings in which organization was

discussed, the Review and Herald later reported that no one who was

present on that "great day, February 22," could forget the sight of

"the whole General Conference . . . upon its knees before God in

confession and prayer for forgiveness." Reformation had been called

for at the session. But even though reformation had been discussed at

that time, Jones, who was at that time editor of the church paper,

pointed out that it had not been fully accomplished. According to

him, repentance and confession alone "did not cleanse the machinery of

the General Conference from the false principles and wrong practices

that through the years had been woven in."^ There was a more thorough

work of reorganization to be effected.

Retrospectively, A. G. Daniells also recognized that the 1899

General Conference session had not made the progress toward

reorganization that could have been made if the momentum had

continued. Although supportive of G. A. Irwin, Daniells conceded that

he was not the man to initiate radical changes. Writing to Edith

Graham, the treasurer of the Australasian Union in 1901, he observed:

The last two years [1899 and 1900] have been very trying to
Brother Irwin. He has felt that his hands were so tied that he
could not effect the changes and reform that he knew ought to be
made. When the message came [in the college library address given

1Ibid., 73-77, 82-83, 85-94.

^[A. T. Jones], "Reformation Called For," RH, 4 April 1899,

217. A. T. Jones was editor of the RH at the time of the 1899
session. The editorial policy of the RH would therefore have
reflected his perspectives on organization.
 162

by Ellen White in 1901] that there must be an entire

reorganization, he felt great relief, and did all any man could do
to assist in that work.^

The first General Conference session of the new century was to bring

the far-reaching reorganization that had been anticipated by some and

feared by others for more than a decade.

The 1901 General Conference Session

The Call for Reorganization

The day before the opening of the thirty-fourth session of the

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in 1901, Ellen White was

invited to meet with a group of church leaders assembled in the

library at Battle Creek College. The meeting was called in order to

discuss the need for urgent and critical analysis of the

organizational structures in the church. Ellen White had not

anticipated that she would be the principal speaker to that semi-

informal gathering. She had made no attempt to prepare in advance any

formal presentation to those assembled.^ But when the meeting had

^A. G. Daniells to Edith Graham, 24 May 1901, RG 11, LB 23,

GCAr.

^When A. G. Daniells, chairman of the meeting, indicated that

Ellen White was going to be the principal speaker, she retorted, "I
did not expect to lead out in this meeting. I thought I would let
you lead out and then if I had anything to say, I would say it."
Daniells replied, "Well it seemed to me (and I think to all of us who
counselled with you this morning) that we had said about as much as we
wished to until we had heard from you" ("Talk of Mrs E. G. White,
before Representative Brethren, In the College Library, April 1, 1901,
2:30 P.M.," MS 43a, 1901. EGWB-AU, 1). There are a number of extant
versions of this College Library Address. The best known version is
held by the White Estate as MS 43, 1901. That manuscript was released
for publication as Release #1028 in 1983. The White Estate also
holds a version which was reported and circulated by Dr John Harvey
Kellogg. It is part of MS 43b, 1901, and is a variant of the
unpublished MS 43a. The EGWB-AU also holds a copy of MS 43, 1901,
 163

been called to order and It was clear that she was to be the speaker,

she found herself well able to voice her concerns; concerns which she

recalled had arisen in the context of events that had "been acted and

reacted for the last fifteen years or more."^ Conscious of the

gravity of the situation, she proceeded to take charge of the meeting

and immediately appealed for a reorganization of the structures of the

denomination.

It had been a decade since Ellen White had personally

addressed the leaders of the church. She and her son, W. C. White,

had just returned from Australia where they had lived for nine years.

Although now living on the west coast of the United States, Ellen

White had made a special effort to attend the session, in spite of

poor health. She was insistent that issues which she perceived as

fundamental to the mission of the denomination be addressed and she

wanted to be present.^ So important was her contribution considered

to be, that the date of the session had even been postponed some weeks

the edited version of the talk, with many interlineations in the

handwriting of Ellen White herself. Apparently Ellen White later
adapted her remarks given in the College library in order to address
problems of a similar nature that arose subsequent to the
reorganization of the church. Reorganization was not adequate in
itself to solve the problems in the church. Since the released
manuscript #1028 is recognized to be an edited version of the original
stenographic record, the unedited version quoted above is used
consistently throughout this dissertation in order to capture as
closely as possible both the sentiments expressed by the speaker and
the rhetorical power of her call to the denomination. Since the
version being used is an unedited stenographic record of actual
speech, no attempt is made to indicate errors in grammar, spelling, or
punctuation by the use of "sic."

1Ibid.

^W. C. White to the General Conference Committee, 22 May

1900, RG 11, ST 1898-1900 Folder, GCAr.
 164

in order to allow her to make the journey to Battle Creek when the

weather was not quite so cold.^

Nevertheless, at the outset of this particular meeting, she

admitted that "she would prefer not to speak." She realized the

gravity and the controversial nature of the subject being discussed.^

She was aware that if some form of reorganization were not effected,

the administrative structures of the denomination could well collapse.

So, with both a hesitancy and a tenacity born of commitment to the

message and mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Ellen White

proceeded.

Initially she described three broad areas as the context for

her concern: (1) the "state of things" in the conferences--leaders did

not understand the nature of their responsibility to the church and

their influence in the church, (2) the numerical growth and the

geographical extension of the missionary endeavor of the church, and

(3) the centralization of administrative control in "one mind or two

^In the RH of 6 November 1900, 720, the 1901 General

Conference session was advertised as taking place at Oakland,
California, "beginning February 10 and closing March 3, 1901." In the
RH for 18 December 1900, 816, a new time and place were advertised.
The General Conference session was now to be held "in Battle Creek,
Mich., April 2-23, 1901." For further discussion as to the reason for
the change, see Richard W. Schwarz, "Reorganization and Reform,"
Adventist Heritage 10 (Spring 1985): 12.

^Ellen White did not want her address given in the Battle
Creek College library circulated. She felt that what was said could
be used to cause embarrassment to some who had been leaders in the
church and its auxiliary organizations, and who had been involved in
the administrative problems which she was addressing. A. G. Daniells
to R. A. Underwood, 21 March 1902, RG 11, LB 26, GCAr.
 165

minds or three minds or four minds, or a few minds."1

Having contextualized her concern, Ellen White came to the

point. Without hesitation she told the assembled leaders that the

work carried on all over the field demanded "an entirely different

course of action" than that which had been followed. A new and

different foundation was to be laid. She was referring to the

administrative structures and methods of the denomination. No longer

was it sufficient to give only lip service to the need for change.

She chastised her listeners: "When we see that message after message

that God has given, has been taken and accepted, but no change--just

the same as it was before, then we know that . . . new blood must be

brought into the regular lines."*

2

She continued by specifying three necessary changes that would

have direct bearing on the organizational structure of the church:

1. The managers of the "regular lines" were to be changed.

2. An "entire new organization" was called for.

3. A committee was to be elected which was not to grant to "half a

dozen" a "ruling and controlling power," but which was to be

widely representative. It was to include those who had leading

responsibilities "in education, medical and other lines of work."3

At no time previous to reorganization at the 1901 General

Conference session did Ellen White explicitly describe the

1-White, "College Library Address." This title is used

subsequently to refer to the address given in the Battle Creek
College library.

2Ibid.

3Ibid.
 166

organizational structures that were needed. While she often referred

to broad principles of organization, she did not prescribe structures.

The following day at the first business meeting of the 1901 session,

she plainly told the delegates that "according to the light that has

been given me--and just how it is to be accomplished I cannot sav--

greater strength must be brought into the managing force of the

Conference" (emphasis supplied).^ Principle rather than the

prescription of structures was consistently her agenda when she

addressed the need and shape of reorganization.

Her attitude at the time of the initial organization of the

Seventh-day Adventist Church in the early 1860s had been similar. On

that occasion, and again leading up to 1901, she spoke in terms of

principles, and left to others--in the first instance largely her

husband, and in the second, largely her son, W. C. White, and his

friend and confidante, A. G. Daniells--the work of applying those

principles to specific structural forms. From her perspective it was

not, in the first place, the structures which were faulty so much as

it was "the principle" that was "wrong." The principles which

informed administrative practice had become "mixed up." They were

totally foreign to God's "sacred, holy, elevated, ennobling"

principles which were supposed to determine the mode of operation "in

every institution, in the publishing house, and in all the interests

of the General Conference.

XGC Bulletin. 1901, 25.

^See Mustard, "James White and Organization," 191-92, 211.

^White, "College Library Address."

 167

The demand for change had become urgent. She emphatically

declared: "God wants a change . . . right here . . . right now."l For

her, the urgency for a broad-based reorganization was not merely a

human prerogative, even though called forth by crisis, but a divine

imperative. In an emotive appeal for the adoption of right

principles, she said:

God help you! I beseech of Him to help you, every one of you, and
to help me. I want help. I want strength. I want power. But
don't you never quote Sister White. I do not want you to ever
quote Sister White until you get up on vantage ground where you
know what you are about. So quote the Bible. Take the Bible. It
is full of meat, it is full of fatness.*
2

It was not her intention that there be a glossing over of the

principles which were the foundation of the imminent reorganization.

Nor was it her intention that her own writings form the basis of

authority for the change. The word of God was to be the basis of

principle. Ellen White intended that a thorough investigation of both

the context and the biblical principles form the background for the

delineation of structure and its management.

The immediate effect of this gathering in the college library

was felt the next morning in the first business meeting of the

session. In contrast to the previous day when Ellen White had been

reticent to speak, she took the initiative immediately and as soon as

G. A. Irwin, the incumbent president of the General Conference had

formally opened the session, she stepped to the podium and spoke to

the assembled delegation. Her words were clear and pointed:

XIbid.

2Ibid.
 168

That these men should stand in the sacred place, to be as the

voice of God to the people, as we once believed the General
Conference to be--that is past. What we want now is a
reorganization. We want to begin at the foundation, and to build
upon a different principle.^

She made it clear that there should no longer be any "kingly

power" in the ranks "to control this or that branch of the work."

Rather, she had become convinced that "power and strength must be

brought into representative committees through "thorough renovation"

and "reorganization." No longer should committees be monopolized by

some who "felt free to dictate just what the committee should say and

do," claiming that those who did not comply with their dictates "were

sinning against Christ." Broad-based representation and

decentralization of the decision making process were the keys to

building "greater strength" into "the managing force of the

conference. Ellen White was careful, however, to stress that

decentralization did not mean anarchy. Her calls for representation

and decentralization were tempered by the need for unity in the

church. In fact she recognized that to a certain extent

centralization was necessary for the successful implementation of a

world-wide missionary enterprise. That is why, for example, she

subsequently supported the integration of the auxiliary organizations

into the conference structure of the church. Although that

integration was an action which centralized power under the

administrative jurisdiction of the General Conference executive

committee, it could be rationalized on the basis of its facilitation

XGC Bulletin. 1901, 25.

2Ibid., 25-26.
 169

of the missionary enterprize and the reduction of needless duplication

of effort.

As in her address in the college library the previous day,

Ellen White made no attempt to prescribe form. In fact, in reference

to the strengthening of the administration of the church, she told the

delegates that "just how it is to be accomplished I can not say.''^

Consistently, it was her contention that her role related to principle

rather than form. The needed structures were always a function of the

principles, and in no case could that dependency be reversed. So

committed was Ellen White to the foundational nature of principles

which she considered to be consistent with the spiritual nature of the

church; and so concerned was she that those principles had been abused

by those in positions of responsibility that she had no hesitation in

telling the delegates at the session:

I would rather lay a child of mine in his grave than have him go
there [the publishing house] to see these principles mangled and
perverted. The principles of heaven are to be carried out in
every family, in the discipline of every church, in every
institution, in every school, and in everything that shall be
managed.1
2

In response to her call for a reorganization based on sound

principles, A. G. Daniells took the floor of the session. Reading a

prepared statement, he moved that "the usual rites and precedents for

arranging and transacting the business of the conference be suspended"

and that a representative committee be appointed to coordinate and

focus "this matter of reorganization." In concert with Ellen White,

1Ibid., 25.

2Ibid.
 170

Daniells affirmed that the problem had been with "methods and

principles" which, he said, "must be swept away." There was to be no

vendetta against administrators. Daniells made it clear that the

movement to reorganize was "not a condemnation of men as men."-*-

Ellen White had not been quite so gentle as Daniells. She wished to

protect the confidence and reputation of those who held leading

positions in the church, and she gave priority to principles rather

than personalities. Nevertheless, she repeatedly chastised specific

individuals and addressed personal appeals for change to the leaders

of the church . Many of the leaders were recipients of her

"testimonies" which often condemned their irresponsible attitudes and

activities.

Ellen White’s call for reorganization was not an impulsive

call. She had been concerned for the church since the Minneapolis

General Conference session in 1888. Although events at the 1901

General Conference session may have been pivotal, they were not

isolated from a context which necessitated the session's precipitous

actions.

Session Actions

Having given the clarion call to reorganization, Ellen White

left it to the elected leaders of the church and the delegates at the

General Conference session to discuss and delineate the form that

reorganization was to take. Earlier, it had been W. C. White who had

assumed the leading role in the movement towards organizational

1Ibid., 27-28.
 171

reform. Since 1897, however, he had chosen to take a more advisory

and consultative role.

In 1901 it was A. G. Daniells who was the moving force behind

the implementation of a reorganized form of church government. He was

elected General Conference president at that session. Unlike his

predecessors, he had spent the greater part of his ministry previous

to his election to the presidency of the General Conference outside

the United States. He returned from New Zealand and Australia with a

wry sense of humor and an ability to adjust to diverse and difficult

persons and situations.'*- More importantly, his missionary experience

molded his theological and organizational priorities.

Coupled with an eschatological-missiological viewpoint was

Daniells's natural predisposition towards administration and

leadership. His strong personality, however, was not always an asset.

Even while still in Australia he was reproved on a number of occasions

by Ellen White because of his overbearing attitude toward other

people.^ Fortunately, Daniells was disposed to repent of his

waywardness.

Nevertheless he often found himself in trouble because of his

*-W. C. White to A. G. Daniells, 13 September 1901, RG 9, W. C.

White Folder 2, GCAr. In a letter to W. C. White in 1902 Daniells
described a group of ministers as being "like a lot of unbroken colts"
(A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, 21 April 1902, Incoming Files, EGWO-
DC). Writing to I. H. Evans in 1903 he commented, "You know how a
flock of geese can not get anywhere without a leader, and I declare,
it seems to me that men are worse even than geese, without leadership"
(A. G. Daniells to I. H. Evans, 18 January 1903, RG 11, LB 30, GCAr).
O
zEllen G. White to The Ministers of the Australian Conference,
11 November 1894, Letter 53, 1894, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to
Brethren Daniells, Palmer and Colcord, 12 March 1897, Letter 50, 1897,
EGWB-AU.
 I

172

strong, judgmental attitudes. For example, when he clashed with

Kellogg at the crucial annual council of the General Conference

executive committee in November 1902, he made the statement that if it

were not for the loyalty of the members of the Seventh-day Adventist

Church, they would never have put up with the burdens "that what we

call leaders had loaded upon their backs for the last fifteen years."

Kellogg interjected that he considered that Daniells had made "a very

unwise and unrighteous statement." In fact he went so far as to call

it "an outrageous statement." A little later Daniells was again

"unwise," although on that occasion it was apparently in a private

conversation with George Butler. Butler recalled that Daniells had

called Kellogg a "hypocrite and a Jesuit."^-

Despite his forthrightness, Daniells's strong personality and

sense of organization were the qualities of leadership needed by the

church in order to carry it through the turmoil of the early years of

the twentieth century. W. C. White may have been the father of

reorganization, but A. G. Daniells was the one whose strength of

character and commitment to an unswerving purpose made a modified

organizational structure a reality in the Seventh-day Adventist

Church.*
2

^■"Stenographic Record of the Fifty-Second Meeting of the

General Conference Committee, 10 A.M., November 16, 1902," RG 1,
Documentary Collection, GCAr, 31; G. I. Butler to A. G. Daniells, 19
February 1905, RG 11, 1905-B Folder, GCAr; G. I. Butler to A. G.
Daniells, 20 April 1905, RG 11, 1905-B Folder, GCAr.

2A. G. Daniells to N. W. Allee, 25 November 1901, RG 11, LB

25, GCAr. When the organization of the Pacific Union Conference was
imminent in 1902, it was W. C. White who implored Daniells to be
present. See W. C. White to A. G. Daniells, 7 February 1902, RG 9, A.
G. Daniells Folder 4, GCAr; and W. T. Knox to A. G. Daniells, 6
 173

Under Daniells's leadership and with the backing of Ellen

White and W. C. White, changes were made at the 1901 General

Conference session which, while they redefined the administrative

structures of the church, were also consistent with the principles of

organization that had apparently controlled the organization of the

denomination in the 1860s.^ The following recommendations were made

by the specially appointed committee which had been given the

responsibility of considering the form that reorganization should

take:

1. Unions and union missions were to be immediately organized in all

parts of the world, wherever possible.^

2. The auxiliary organizations were to be discontinued as independent

entities and integrated into the conference administrative

structure under the direction of the General Conference executive

committee. Each was to be a department headed by a departmental

secretary. The exception was the International Medical Missionary

February 1902, RG 9, A. G. Danlells Folder 5, GCAr. For secondary

reference, see F. Donald Yost, "A. G. Daniells: The Making of a
General Conference President," Adventist Heritage 6 (Summer 1979): 56-
58; John J. Robertson, A. G. Daniells: The Making of a General
Conference President. 1901 (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1977).

^■Gilbert Jorgensen has ably described the 1901 General

Conference session and it is not our intention to rehearse all the
events of that session here. See Jorgensen, "Administrative
Reorganization of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists."
The events and actions of the 1901 General Conference session are
recorded in GC Bulletin. 1901.
O
■
‘•See recommendation on organization, number 1, General
Conference Quarterly Bulletin. 1901, 501. A full summary of all
appointments and resolutions relative to reorganization is found in
"General Summary of Organizations and Recommendations as Adopted by
the General Conference and the General Conference Committee, April 2
to May 1, 1901," ibid, 499-506.
 174

and Benevolent Association which was to retain its autonomy.^

3. The General Conference was no longer to be under the leadership of

a single individual but was to be directed by an enlarged General

Conference executive committee composed of twenty-five members.

The committee was to comprise men representing wide-spread

interests although six were to be appointed by the International

Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association. The committee was

to elect its own chairman--a title which was to replace that of

"president of the General Conference.

4. Provision was to be made for the transfer of ownership and

management of institutions that had been under General Conference

^See recommendations on organization, numbers 6 and 9, ibid.

There was very little discussion concerning the integration of the
auxiliary organizations into the conference structure of the
denomination. Certainly, that action which was a centralizing action
was not perceived as such by the delegates at the session. Ellen
White, W. C. White, and A. G. Daniells had apparently so convinced the
session of the viability of the arrangement on the basis of the
pattern that had been in operation in Australia for the seven years
previous that no discussion was considered necessary. The speech
which was probably pivotal was that given by A. G. Daniells (with some
helpful interjections by W. C. White) at the fourth meeting of the
session, Friday, 5 April 1901. See GC Bulletin. 1901, 89-93. He
again addressed the issue in the sixteenth meeting, 12 April 1901,
3:00 P.M. At that time, after again discussing what had been done in
Australia, Daniells said: "We talk about the General Conference, but
we have never had a General Conference. We have had a North American
General Conference, or a North American Union Conference, but we have
not had a world's General Conference. In this new arrangement
[talking of the integration of departments into the conference
structure), it appears to me that we have the broadest, the most
efficient, and the most workable General Conference Committee that
this denomination has ever had" (ibid., 228-29).

^See recommendations on organization, numbers 5, 7, and 8,

ibid.
 175

jurisdiction to the respective unions.^

5. Provision was made for a more substantial financial base for the

missionary enterprize of the church. A fund-sharing plan was

commenced.^

6. The members of the Foreign Mission Board were to be nominated by

the executive committee of the General Conference and elected at

the session. Thereafter the administration of mission work was to

be under the supervision of the General Conference committee. It

was to be left to the committee to decide how long the corporate

life of the Foreign Mission Board should be extended.^

No departmental structure was established to promote the

missionary cause and care for the needs and concerns of missionaries

in the field. Rather the General Conference executive committee

became an enlarged foreign mission board. A. G. Daniells, having just

returned from a protracted period of foreign service, was elected as

its chairman, and William Spicer, who had recently returned from

^See recommendations on organization numbers 14 and 15, ibid.

See also ibid., 232, 281.
O
See recommendation on organization number 4, General
Conference Quarterly Bulletin. 1901, 501; GC Bulletin. 1901, 169-70.
See also recommendations on finance, numbers 1-5, General Conference
Quarterly Bulletin. 1901, 502; GC Bulletin. 1901, 170-72, 207.
O
See recommendations on organization numbers 11-13, General
Conference Quarterly Bulletin. 1901, 501; GC Bulletin. 1901, 175-80,
201-7, 219, 225-29. The Foreign Mis sion Board was retained as a legal
entity until 1919, but its function had effectively ceased in 1903
following a transition period. Since 1930, a standing committee has
been responsible for inter-division appointments. That committee is
chaired by the secretary of the General Conference. Seventh-dav
Adventist Encyclopedia. 1976 ed., s.v., "Mission Board."
 176

mission service in India, was appointed to act as the corresponding

secretary. •*-

Missionary Expansion

The immediate result of the action to bring the foreign

mission work under the control of the General Conference, and the

impact of the presence of Daniells and Spicer can be observed by

simply comparing the diminishing number of missionaries leaving the

shores of North America between 1895 and 1900 with the dramatic leap

in the number of departing missionaries in the years 1901 and 1902.

In 1901 alone, 183 new missionaries were sent overseas. Many of these

were appointed at the General Conference session in that year.^ In

1903, the number had fallen again due to the organizational and

theological turmoil in the church. However, in an article written for

the Review and Herald at the beginning of 1904, W. A. Spicer wrote

that sixty laborers had sailed from the United States, and eight

others who had been already stationed in Europe went into a pioneering

area. Spicer also reported that besides those counted, some had gone

to Mexico and Europe as independent, self-supporting workers. He

mentioned that it was not the custom of the Foreign Mission Board to

^Bruce Bauer has criticized the integration of the

congregational and mission structures in the denomination after 1901.
He has argued that the contemporary missionary enterprize of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church would be better served by the
maintenance of a semi-autonomous mission board which would be
responsible for the promotion of world mission and the appointment and
care of cross-cultural missionaries. See Bauer, "Congregational and
Mission Structures."

^See "Missionaries to Foreign Fields: 1901 and 1902," RG 21,

Correspondence: Missionaries Sent Abroad--1918 Folder, GCAr.
 177

list children, although they were certainly wanted in the fields and

were counted "as helpers in the missionary campaign."3

Commenting on the new wave of missionary commitment and fervor

that was beginning to be felt in the denomination after the downturn

in the late 1890s, Daniells observed that the Lord had "laid it upon

the hearts of many, many people to offer their services to go abroad."

He noted also that the financial situation was improving so that a

larger number had been able to be sent abroad. Daniells was not

satisfied, however. Fresh from fourteen years of mission service

himself and having some awareness of the dimensions of the task that

the church had set for itself, he was quick to point out that what had

been done was just "a very small beginning" and that even more would

be accomplished when the church took "hold of this work to finish it

in this generation.

There was always a strange mixture of optimism and pessimism

in the context of Adventist mission. The great optimism was expressed

in terms of "open doors . . . millions of them everywhere . . . and

Jesus Christ knocking at every one of them."3 Russia was described as

"a field full of open doors."4 In 1902 Daniells was so confident that

the task was attainable that he declared: "I hold that a man can do

almost anything in this world if he sees the way to do it, and has the

3W. A. Spicer, "Off to the Mission Fields in 1903," RH, 4

February 1904, 5.

2Sten 1903, 30 March 1903, RG 0, GCAr.

3GC Bulletin. 1901, 258.

4Ibid., 247.
 178

convictions that it ought to be done."^ Conviction was that necessary

requirement that few Seventh-day Adventists were lacking. They were

convinced that the end of the world was upon them and that the

accomplishment of the task was imminent. At the 1901 General

Conference session, W. A. Spicer confidently asserted that the Spirit

of God was "working upon heathen hearts" and, therefore,

we need not think because there are vast populations

unevangelized, that it will take God a long time to do the work.
Never have I felt the imminence of the coming of the Lord so
keenly, never has it seemed so clear that the Lord was even at the
door, as out there in India, with the millions of heathen round
about.

The very urgency which spurred optimism also, at times,

engendered an apparent pessimism. As early as 1889 Seventh-day

Adventists were concerned that in comparison with what others had

done, and were still doing, their part was "quite insignificant."^ In

1901, Daniells declared that unless something were done, it would

"take a millennium to give this message to the world. ... We shall

^A. G. Daniells to S. N. Curtiss, 28 January 1902, RG 11, LB

25, GCAr.

2GC Bulletin. 1901, 434.

. 0. Corliss, "The Needs of the Church," RH, 17 December

1889, 758. Corliss had just returned home, having been a member of
the pioneering Seventh-day Adventist party that went to Australia in
1885. In this article, he discussed his theory of mission service.
In one of the earliest calls within the Seventh-day Adventist Church
for thorough preparation for mission service--preparation which even
should include anthropological study--he said: "While it may be
necessary to urge upon people the abstract theory of the duty of doing
missionary work, a knowledge of how to work must first be gained
before that theory can be successfully carried out. To know how to
work successfully for any people, it is absolutely necessary to know
their circumstances and surroundings. Without such knowledge, it is
not possible to create an interest in them" (ibid.)
 179

never, at the rate of progress we are making, get this message before

the world in our day."!

The pessimistic predicament, however, was presented only in

order to challenge the listeners to greater exploits. Seventh-day

Adventists would not conceive of the possibility of failure. The

eschaton was imminent. The optimistic expectation of carrying the

Seventh-day Adventist message to the world was non-negotiable.

1902: Confrontation

The General Conference session in 1901 had ended on a very

optimistic note. The delegates had responded with an extended praise

and testimony meeting on the last day of the session. Ellen White

reflected that "a sweet solemnity" came over her when she brought to

mind the events of the meeting and that the delegates had witnessed

"the stately steppings of the Lord" in its outcome. Daniells, who had

keenly anticipated the session of 1901 regarded the session as a great

victory, the beginning of a new era. He wrote to E. H. Gates, pioneer

missionary to the South Pacific, that he had high hopes that the next

General Conference session would be a "missionary conference.

The optimism continued through 1901 and into the first half of

1902. Daniells was busy carrying the responsibility of demonstrating

how the principles of organization were to be implemented in the

1GC Bulletin. 1901, 48.

^GC Bulletin. 1901, "Missionary Farewell Service," 458-66;

ibid, "Continuation of the Farewell Service," 466-73; Ellen G. White,
"Bring an Offering to the Lord," MS 48, 1901, EGWB-AU; A. G. Daniells
to W. C. White, 23 August 1900, Incoming Files, EGWO-DC; A. G.
Daniells to E. R. Palmer, 3 May 1901, RG 9, A. G. Daniells Folder 6,
GCAr; A. G. Daniells to E. H. Gates, 23 May 1901, RG 11, LB 23, GCAr.
 180

conferences and unions in North America and overseas.^ In mid-1902,

however, his sharp clash with J. H. Kellogg severely strained the

ability of the denomination to maintain its commitment to those

principles.

Daniells had anticipated at the beginning of 1902 that there

might be a crisis brewing over conflicting principles of organization.

He did not anticipate, however, the tenacity with which those who were

drawn against him would pursue their objective. In mid-1902 Daniells

and Kellogg sharply disagreed over the "no-debt” policy that Daniells

insisted that the church adopt. The focus of attention was the

establishment of a sanitarium in Britain. Daniells was not prepared

to permit the church to finance the project by creating further debts

and he was not prepared to compromise that position. He held

tenaciously to his conviction, believing that "right principles" would

prevail. He could not countenance "peace" if right principles were

sacrificed. As far as he was concerned, there was no conflict between

^-Between June and September 1901 Daniells told White that he

attended 12 camp meetings "besides my trip to the South and New York,
and the time I have put in at Berrien Springs with the Lake Union
Conference Committee." "During that time, he added, "I have travelled
10,000" miles. A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, 2 September 1901, RG
11, LB 24, GCAr. See also A. G. Daniells to W. T. Knox, 31 January
1902, RG 11, LB 25, GCAr.

^A statement of Daniells's view of the circumstances of the

"London incident" which he recognized as "the cause of the trouble
that has arisen between Dr. Kellogg" and himself was included in a
letter written to W. C. White in early 1903. See A. G. Daniells to W.
C. White, 3 March 1903, Incoming Files, EGWO-DC. A copy of the
statement is to be found in RG 11, LB 30, 470-76, GCAr. See also, A.
G. Daniells to W. C. White, 6 July 1902, Incoming Files, EGWO-DC.
 181

principles; only between men. Principles were non-negotiable.

As Daniells later reflected on the clash between Kellogg and

himself, he recounted how "the Doctor” had not only attempted to

discredit his "no-debt" policy, but had also sought to undermine his

faith in the counsel that had been given by Ellen White and in the

validity of her inspiration. Daniells wrote to W. C. White: "You do

not know how nearly I was brought to ruin by the cunning insinuations

of doubt that man sowed in my mind." He told White that the doctor

had also tried to do the same thing to Prescott and Spicer and that he

had "nearly succeeded" with all of them.^

The battle was fought in the public arena at the fall council

of the General Conference executive committee in November 1902. At

that time, it became obvious that not only the debt policy of the

General Conference was to be decided but also any future relationship

between the denomination and the medical institutions under the

control of the International Medical Missionary and Benevolent

Association was coming under serious question. To complicate matters

^A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, 21 January 1902, Incoming

Files, EGWO-DC; A. G. Daniells to A. B. Olsen, 28 August 1902, RG 11,
LB 27, GCAr; A. G. Daniells to H. W. Cottrell, 2 November 1902, RG 11,
LB 27, GCAr; A. G. Daniells to W. Covert, 28 December 1902, RG 11, LB
29, GCAr; A. G. Daniells to G. C. Tenney, 23 February 1903, RG 11, LB
30, GCAr. Looking from a different perspective, W. C. White said that
the conflict was not so much with men as with principles. White was
endeavoring to be as conciliatory as possible in the situation.
Daniells, on the other hand, was determined that there was only one
right set of principles and that they were those which he espoused.
See W. C. White to A. G. Daniells, 3 November 1902, RG 9, A. G.
Daniells Folder 6, GCAr.

^A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, 2 July 1904, Incoming Files,

EGWO-DC; A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, 28 October 1904, Incoming
Files, EGWO-DC.
 182

even further, Kellogg had just completed and circulated draft copies

of his book, The Living Temple. Despite concerted efforts by Kellogg

and his allies to gain control of the executive committee and replace

Daniells with A. T. Jones as chairman, Daniells was able to rally

sufficient support to win the day.^ The conflict was to have a marked

impression on Daniells, however. Theological and organizational

controversy was to modify the emphasis that was placed on some of the

principles of organization that had been espoused in 1901.

1903 General Conference Session

Because of the confrontation that had occurred between

Daniells and Kellogg the church found itself deeply divided as it

approached the 1903 General Conference session. Allied with Kellogg

were most of those involved in the medical institutions operated by

the International Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association. A.

T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner also aligned themselves with Kellogg--but

not because they were specifically involved with his medical

interests. They united with him because of their mutual opposition to

some aspects of the plan of organization that was being championed by

Daniells, and to some extent by their tendency toward immanentist

theology.^

On the other hand, most of the administrative staff of the

church were allied with Daniells. Even W. W. Prescott who had stood

^•Schwarz, "John Harvey Kellogg," 380-81.

^See, for example, the discussion of Jones's sermon at the

1903 General Conference session on page 232, below.
 183

with Jones and Waggoner in 1897 and in 1901 had joined forces with

Daniells.

Despite some sharp differences of opinion that had existed

between the two groups before the 1903 General Conference session, it

was the effect of resolutions taken at that session which made schism

inevitable. Although many actions concerned with organization were

taken at the session, the two which proved most divisive were the

integration of the medical missionary work into the departmental

structure of the General Conference and the reinstatement of the title

"president."

The Integration of the Medical Work

into the Conference Structure

The 1903 General Conference Bulletin reported that the

International Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association should "so

arrange its constituency, and its constitution governing the same,

that it may be indispensably and always a department of the General

Conference of Seventh-day Adventists."'*' The intention was that the

medical missionary work should bear the same relationship to the

General Conference as did the other former auxiliary organizations.

•J• H. Kellogg was not about to accept that kind of reasoning,

however.^ He had no intention of subordinating his organization to

the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Despite Ellen

White's insistence that "it was in the purpose of God that a health

*-GC Bulletin. 1903, 216.

^For discussion of Kellogg's reaction to the resolution and

subsequent developments see Schwarz, "John Harvey Kellogg," 380-81.
 184

institution should be organized and controlled exclusively" by the

Seventh-day Adventist Church, Kellogg had long decried that necessity

and regarded the medical institutions as "undenominational."^

The consequence of the action taken at the 1903 General

Conference session and Kellogg's reaction to it was that by 1906, the

denomination was to lose the principal medical institutions that had

been administered by the International Medical Missionary and

Benevolent Association. Kellogg himself would be disfellowshipped by

the denomination in that year.^

At Issue over the Presidency

The other issue which precipitated schism attracted more

discussion than any other organizational issue considered by the

session in 1903--even more than the issue over the medical

institutions. It had to do with the title that was to be given to the

one appointed to serve the denomination as its chief executive

officer. Perhaps more than any other, this issue was indicative of

the principles which had been developed by Jones, Waggoner, and

Prescott during the 1890s and into the new century.

During the early part of the 1890s, Jones and Waggoner had

been developing an ecclesiology which understood the headship of

Christ to have preeminence over human leaders in the church--a

christocentric ecclesiological model. At the same time, Ellen White

^Ellen G. White, Testimony for the Physicians and Helpers of

the Sanitarium (n.p., 1879), 31; Sten 1903, 3 April 1903, RG 0, GCAr,
80-85; and 5 April 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 6-17.

^Schwarz, "John Harvey Kellogg," 406-11.

 185

was rebuking the leaders of the General Conference for their

centralizing and authoritarian attitudes. By 1897, it was widely

recognized that a change in the General Conference leadership was

necessary. Jones and his associates, Waggoner and Prescott, saw the

General Conference session in that year as an opportunity to impress

upon the church their concepts of organization, especially their view

of the office of the president of the General Conference.■*•

Fortuitously for them, a special series of testimonies was

printed during the General Conference session of 1897 and circulated

among the delegates. On page twenty-nine of that series was the

sentence: "It is not wise to choose one man as president of the

■*-The record of the General Conference session proceedings for

1897 is exceedingly brief. The only explicit references to
organizational concepts and principles can be found in the record of a
series of sermons that were preached by E. J. Waggoner on the book of
Hebrews. GC Bulletin. 1897, 156-7, 235-36, 250-52. Reaction to the
agitation of the principles of organization was mixed. W. C. White
seemed enthusiastic. W. C. White to Ellen G. White, 24 February
1897, LB 11A, EGWO-DC. Writing four years later, just after the
General Conference session of 1901, Alberta Little wished that "those
who have the shaping of the work just now, while it is going through
the present upheaval or revolution or whatever you please to call it,
would study the principles underlying this work" as had been
advocated by Prescott and Waggoner in 1897. Alberta L. Little to A.
G. Daniells, 18 June 1901, RG 9, A. G. Daniells Folder 2, GCAr. On
the other hand, John Harvey Kellogg was not at all sure that the
principles that were explicated in 1897 were suitable for the church.
Even though an alliance was soon to develop between Jones, Waggoner,
and himself, he wrote to Irwin in 1898 that "I myself believe the
principles of authority which he [Prescott] and Dr. Waggoner expounded
at College View at the last General Conference, but at the same time
it seems to me clear that the old methods of organization and the
administration of organized work are not altogether wrong." Kellogg
was revealing his bias towards his own centralized, bureaucratic style
of administration. J. H. Kellogg to G. A. Irwin, 17 July 1898, RG 9,
S. N. Haskell Folder, GCAr.
 186

General Conference. That sentence, taken out of its context, became

the rallying call for those who wished to dispense with the title,

" p r e s i d e n t . I t was to be quoted time and again during the next

twelve years by those who advocated a christocentric model of

organization.

The immediate outcome was that the presidency of the General

Conference Association, the presidency of the Foreign Mission Board

and the presidency of the General Conference in North America were

allocated to three different men rather than to only one man as had

been the case previously; the territory of the General Conference was

divided into three so that there were in actual fact three General

Conferences (Australasia, Europe, and North America, with the latter

retaining general oversight of the other two); and the jurisdiction of

^•Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies for Ministers and

Workers (College View, Nebr.: College Press, 1897), 29. Also
reprinted in Ellen G. White, Series A (Payson, Ariz.: Leaves of Autumn
Books, 1976), 287. The letter, "To Conference Presidents and
Councillors," in which the sentence was penned, was written from
"Sunnyslde," Cooranbong, New South Wales, Australia, in August 1896.
There is no record of the letter in the files of the EGWB-AU. The
original letter was apparently gathered together with a number of
other "testimonies" relating to organization and printed while the
General Conference was in session in 1897. The foreword by 0. A.
Olsen was dated 21 February 1897, the third day of the session.

^No specific entry was made in the GC Bulletin, with reference

to Ellen White's statement concerning the presidency of the General
Conference, except in a preamble to the recommendations presented to
the floor of the session by the sub-committee on plans. Further, the
record only gives an abbreviated, second-hand account of the
discussion concerning the actions which were taken by the delegates
in response to the attention drawn to this sentence and it is
impossible to know the context and the full content of all that was
said. The importance of the discussion can be assessed, however, by
the nature of the actions that resulted and the rapidity with which
they were taken--only one week after Olsen wrote the foreword to the
testimony that contained the sentence which was the focus of
attention. GC Bulletin 1897, 212.
 187

the president of the General Conference was distributed so that three

presidents--in Australasia, Europe, and North America--bore the

responsibility.^- It appears that even the title "president" was

dispensed with for a time, although usage quickly reverted to the

former title. For that reason, some took the opportunity to accuse

the General Conference of apostasy.^

No significant adjustments to the scheme were made at the

General Conference session in 1899. However, by 1901 Ellen White and

W. C. White had returned to the United States and A. G. Daniells was

emerging as the leader of the church. All three had been involved

with the structural experiment in Australia and, presumably, were

amenable to innovation. Those who had been at the forefront of reform

at the 1897 session realized that the time was right for them to

champion a form of organization that fitted their theological

requirement. Although Prescott was no longer quite as outspoken as he

had been in 1897, it was he who brought the attention of the session

to the same sentence that had precipitated the changes in 1897.!

With reference to the presidency, there were two changes made

^Tenney, "Doings of the Conference," 170. At the 1903 General

Conference session, Jones attempted to call the delegates back to the
principles of 1897 when "the Conference adopted . . . three presidents
instead of one" (Sten 1903, 9 April 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 44).

^Writing to A. G. Daniells soon after the 1901 General

Conference session, W. C. White remembered that "after the Conference
at College View [1897] it was emphatically stated that now we had no
president of the General Conference; and yet within a few months the
title was used the same as before; and this very fact is now pointed
to as a matter of apostasy" (W. C. White to A. G. Daniells, 24 May
1901, LB 16, EGWO-DC).

3Sten 1901, 10 April 1901, RG 0, GCAr, 59.

 188

at the 1901 session. First, it was voted that the leader of the

General Conference be the "chairman" of the executive committee.

Second, the chairman was to be elected by the executive committee

itself rather than from the floor of the session. The intention was

that no person carry the title of "president" of the General

Conference. Unlike most of the other innovations in 1901, neither

changing the title of the leader of the church nor the method of

election to office were part of the package that Daniells and the

Whites had carried with them from Australia. Those decisions were

wholly a response to the efforts of those who held to the necessity

for a christocentric model of administration. If Christ was the head

of the church, they reasoned, no person should have a title which

appeared to supplant him from that office.

The record of the action which gave the General Conference

executive committee authority to elect its own chairman indicates that

discussion of the proposal was very brief. Only six persons spoke to

it apart from Daniells who was chairing the meeting. Of those, only

one, H. C. Basney, could "not see any light" in the proposal. He

observed that "if this is the way it is to be done, it appears to me

as though more power will be concentrated in this Committee than ever

before." Strangely no one took up his point. Perhaps the reason was

that almost immediately S. B. Whitney rose to exhort the delegates

"with reference to the preciousness" of time and that each "should be

quick to hear, but slow to speak.” "I appreciate the interest of

these brethren in these questions," Whitney added, "but brethren, we

can save time and labor for ourselves, if we should think a little
 189

more before we speak." The record indicates that the delegates

responded with hearty "amens" and nothing more was said right then.3

At the next meeting, reference was again made to the proposed

change in the constitution that allowed the committee to elect its

chairman and dispensed with the title "president." The discussion was

quickly sidetracked but not before W. C. White had taken the

opportunity to show his support for the proposal. He contended that

it seemed "to be for the advantage of the work" that the committee,

which would "be a thoroughly representative one," be allowed "to

choose its chairman, its secretaries, its treasurers, its committees,

and agents." He added that it was quite possible that "no one should

be chairman of this committee for a period of more than twelve months

at a time." At no time did any of the delegates speak to the

substitution of the term "chairman" for the title "president."*

23

But within a few weeks, A. G. Daniells, who was appointed as

chairman of the executive committee, was using the title "president."

On 21 May he wrote to W. T. Knox that "some of the recommendations

made during the Conference have turned out to be unwise, and we have

been obliged to reverse the action of the Conference."3 On 31 May he

XSten 1901, 10 April 1901, RG 0, GCAr, 58-61.

2GC Bulletin. 1901, 205-6.

3A. G. Daniells to W. T. Knox, 21 May 1901, RG 11, LB 23,

GCAr. In 1906 W. C. White noted that a search of his personal letter
files revealed that "letterheads published for the Mission Board
shortly after the close of the conference of 1901, bear the name of A.
G. Daniells, Chairman, whereas the letter-heads published for the
General Conference Committee which were issued as early as May 13,
bear the name A. G. Daniells, President" ( W. C. White to A. G.
Daniells, 13 August 1906, RG 11, W. C. White Folder 2, GCAr). The
General Conference Quarterly Bulletin for the second quarter of 1901
 190

thought it necessary to explain the situation to W. C. White:

I have given considerable thought to the question you raise

regarding the presidency of the General Conference. I may say
further that the members of the Committee who were left at Battle
Creek were brought face to face with the question, and we all
decided that the meaning of the expression in the Testimony was
not that the General Conference should have no president, but that
the President of the General Conference should not be the one
person to whom the details in the various parts of the field
should be referred. Brother Prescott fully agreed with us in
this. I was asked to write an explanation to the members of the
Committee who were abroad; but I felt a little delicate about
doing this. I told Brother Prescott I thought that the men who
first gave this turn to the expression were the ones to correct
it; and I still think so.^

Apparently Daniells did not write to the members of the

General Conference committee explaining what had happened. Five years

later, A. T. Jones (a member of the executive committee elected at the

General Conference session in 1901) charged that Daniells had

manipulated an appointment to the General Conference presidency by a

small group of committee members without the consent of the larger

committee and against the intention and direction of the General

Conference in session. Daniells replied that he had not been elected

to the position at all. Jones countered that he must therefore have

assumed the position and that to take such a step was even worse than
O
if he had been elected.i

listed Daniells as the chairman of the committee. The Bulletin for

the third quarter listed him as the president.

-*-A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, 31 May 1901, Incoming Files,

EGWO-DC,

^A. T. Jones to A. G. Daniells, 26 January 1906, RG 11, 1910

fsicl A. T. Jones Folder, GCAr; General Conference Committee,
Statement. 25-26; A. T. Jones, A Final Word and a Confession (n.p.,
[1906]),31-35). Jones's letter to Daniells was later reprinted as
Some History, Some Experiences, and Some Facts (n.p., 1906). In A
Final Word. Jones claimed that he was not aware that Daniells was
 191

Daniells's reasoning regarding the use of a title can be

traced in the correspondence between W. C. White and himself soon

after the session in 1901. On 24 May 1901 White wrote to Daniells

requesting his opinion on the matter of the title of president. He

referred to Jones's contentions that the General Conference had "no

president any more"; that the state conferences were "not to have

presidents"; and that "the office of president of the Union

Conference" was soon to be abolished. White explained that by

insisting on the use of the term "chairman," he thought Jones was

attacking the disposition towards kingly power that was often

displayed by those in positions of responsibility. Nevertheless, he

questioned the need to discard "the name and title of president"

altogether. He thought that by using the designation "chairman," they

had merely "exchanged a convenient title for a clumsy one." According

to White's estimation, it was "the method of work more than the title

using the title "president" until just before the opening of the
General Conference session in 1903. Idem, A Final W o r d . 32-33. W. C.
White said that his mother approved of the reply (i.e. the Statement: 1
that the General Conference committee had prepared in response to
Jones's History. Experiences, and Facts. White himself felt that on
occasion the reply was a little more vigorous than it needed to be.
He reminded Daniells that "early in the summer of 1901" Daniells "had
found it necessary to sign some legal documents in behalf of the
General Conference." White asked: "Did not the Committee meet and
take some action, or come to some agreement signifying that the
Chairman of the Executive Committee was President of the Conference?"
"If so," White contended, "should not this have been recognized in
your 'Statement?'" (W. C. White to A. G. Daniells, 30 May 1906, RG 11,
1906-W Folder 1, GCAr). Further, the reply to Jones that had been
prepared by the General Conference made no attempt to answer the
charges of authoritarianism that had been leveled by him. There was
no recognition of the danger of developing a bureaucracy and no
reference to the many warnings concerning "kingly power" and the
centralization of decision making authority that had been given by
Ellen White. No conciliatory attitude at all was shown in the paper.
W. C. White objected to that.
 192

that required reformation." If they were to revert to the use of

"president," however, something should be written for the Review and

Herald so that they situation would be understood by all.^

In reply, Daniells explained that the committee had decided

"that the meaning of the expression in the Testimony was not that the

General Conference should have no president, but that the president of

the General Conference should not be the one person to whom the

details in the various parts of the field should be referred." He

added that he thought that "the men who first gave this turn to the

expression were the ones to correct it.

White replied that he thought it was right of Daniells to use

the title "president" instead of the title "chairman of the General

Conference committee." He was pleased, however, that there had been

no public comments regarding the title. Nothing had actually been

written in the Review and Herald regarding the matter. He also

informed Daniells that A. T. Jones had been elected president of the

California Conference, and that, surprisingly, it had been done

"without any protest to the use of the title.

1W. C. White to A. G. Daniells, 24 May 1901, LB 16, EGWO-DC.

^A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, 31 May 1901, Incoming Files,

EGWO-DC.

-Hi. C. White to A. G. Daniells, 19 June 1901, LB 16, EGWO-DC.

The acceptance by Jones of the presidency of a conference was a
surprise to Daniells. In the first place, Daniells did not see Jones
as a particularly adept administrator. He confided in his friend E.
R. Palmer: "Brother Jones is a mighty man in the Scriptures and in
history; but he is a queer fellow in business affairs. . . . We had
been counting on Brother Jones for a lot of fine field work during the
coming year. What on earth he will do with a Conference, is more
than anybody can tell. Of course he will be a strong man to travel
over the State, but he will need a whole committee to keep business
 193

In his reply to White, Daniells took the time to explain the

situation more fully. First, he claimed that he had never been in

harmony with what he considered "the radical positions" of Jones and

affairs in proper shape" (A. G. Daniells to E. R. Palmer, 19 June

1901, RG 11, LB 23, GCAr). Daniells was not the only one to question
Jones's administrative aptitude. After he had been president for a
little over a year, the secretary of the California Conference wrote
to Daniells that Jones was "not adapted to the work of Conference
President." He had "great principles" and "grand thoughts" but was
"utterly impractical because of lack of executive ability, judgment
and wisdom." Brown's criticisms were not vindictive. He described
Jones as being "among his friends," who wanted to see "his great gifts
employed in the work" for which he was adapted. He summarized: "Men
with great talents often have great strength combined with great
weakness. This is certainly true in the case of brother Jones" (M. H.
Brown to A. G. Daniells, 8 August 1902, RG 9, A. G. Daniells Folder 3,
GCAr). Not all considered Jones to be so poor an administrator,
however. In March 1902, E. A. Sutherland implied that Jones could do
just as good a job of administering the Lake Union as Daniells. E. A.
Sutherland to A. G. Daniells, 10 March 1902, RG 9, A. G. Daniells
Folder 3, GCAr. Even W. C. White was somewhat sympathetic towards
Jones and complimented him on the bold, courageous manner with which
he was taking hold of the work in California. W. C. White to A. G.
Daniells, 26 September 1901, RG 9, W. C. White Folder 2, GCAr. By
February 1902, however, White began to realize that Jones was just a
little too enthusiastic and that some of his administrative methods
were too abrasive. He informed Daniells that he might be called upon
to smooth some troubled waters in California. W. C. White to A. G.
Daniells, 7 February 1902, RG 9, A. G. Daniells Folder 4, GCAr.
More surprising to Daniells than Jones's election in spite of his lack
of administrative ability, however, was that he had permitted himself
to be elected to take the very title to which he had so strenuously
objected. If Jones so strongly objected to the title, why did he so
readily assume a presidency? At the 1903 General Conference session
he explained his motives for allowing himself to be elected to the
presidency in California in terms of opportunity to apply his
principles of organization and administration in an actual situation.
Apparently the experiment was not too successful. Jones resigned from
the presidency after the 1903 General Conference session. Sten 1903, 9
April 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 60b-61. Despite his apparent inconsistencies
between theory and practice, both White and Daniells retained good
faith in Jones as a counsellor and Bible expositor until the events of
mid-1902 began to polarize the leadership of the church. W. C. White
to A. G. Daniells, 12 July 1902, RG 9, A. G. Daniells Folder 6, GCAr;
A. G. Daniells to G. I. Butler, 3 July 1903, RG 11, LB 30, GCAr. For
an account of Jones tenure as conference president, see Knight, From
1888 to Apostasy. 194-205.
 194

Prescott. Second, he explained that the need to provide a title for

the head of the organization in reference to some dealings with

railway companies led Prescott and himself to re-examine the testimony

written by Ellen White in 1896. Their conclusion was that "the man

acting as president of the General Conference was not to be cumbered

with the details of the entire conference." On that point the

"division of the field into separate, distinct Union Conferences"

satisfied the requirement. Third, they had concluded that the

instruction given by Ellen White in the testimony which had been used

to substantiate the abolition of the title of "president," was

directed at the "putting away of kingly, autocratic, arbitrary power,"

not merely a title. Abuse of power, he reasoned, could be exercised

regardless of the title used. With that, Daniells had informed

Prescott that he was the man to make the explanation, and "thus the

matter dropped.

White, in his reply, simply noted "with interest" what

Daniells had said concerning the title of president, but had no burden

to say "anything more about it." He considered that no great harm

would come from what had been said unless somebody felt "a burden to
O
create confusion.ni

Jones and his associates, however, did feel a burden. It was

not "a burden to create confusion" for its own sake. It was a burden

which had grown from their conviction that Christ alone was the head

^-A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, 1 July 1901, Incoming Files,

EGWO-DC.

^W. C. White to A. G. Daniells, 11 July 1901, RG 9, A. G.

Daniells Folder 3, GCAr.
 195

of the church. That theological position was to be translated into

practice as a principle vital to their concept of organizational

design.

At the 1903 General Conference session a new constitution was

passed which reinstated the title "president" and restored the

election of the president as a prerogative of the delegates, rather

than of the executive committee. This was not done without serious

objections by Jones, Waggoner, and their allies, although the

objections were not so much to the restoration of the method of

election as they were to the reinstatement of the title. Even the

committee which recommended the changes was divided on the issue. It

submitted a majority report to the floor of the session which

recommended that the changes be made; and a minority report which

recommended that the constitution as written in 1901 be retained. In

the discussion which followed, Percy Magan called the attempt to

restore the former title of "president," "subversive to the principles

of organization given . . . at the General Conferences of 1897 and

1901." His contention, along with those of Jones and Waggoner in

particular, was that "those principles were given . . . by the Spirit

of God."l The implication was that they could not be changed,

Jones spoke against the dangers of a return to "one-man-

power." For him the use of the title seemed to be all that was needed

to guarantee abuse of the position of leadership in the General

Conference. He did not indicate that he recognized that leadership

could be abused regardless of the specific title which was attached to

1Sten 1903, 9 April 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 39-43.

 196

its function. In the polemical situation in which he found himself,

and with the efforts he was making to have the title of "president"

permanently revoked, Jones may not have been willing to concede that

point.^

The new constitution was adopted, however, after extended

speeches by Daniells, W. C. White, J. N. Loughborough, and G. I.

Butler. Daniells argued that the burden of the appeal by Ellen White

was not that the title of "president" be dispensed with but that "the

field . . . be divided up so that he [the president] will not have the

large burden of details that have been falling upon him." This

requirement, he claimed, was satisfied by the union conference

arrangement.^ W. C. White argued that by making the departments

advisory rather than executive, the tendency toward kingly power which

had previously been multiplied in proportion to the number of distinct

auxiliary organizations, was reduced.-^ Loughborough and Butler

recounted the history of the organization of the church. They had

^■Jones's complete argument and the replies given by W. C.

White, A. G. Daniells, J. N. Loughborough, and G. I. Butler can be
read in Sten 1903, 9 April 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 43-90a.

^Ibid., 70-76. Daniells added: "I can not see the danger and
the harm in this that our brethren speak of. I do not see it" (ibid.,
76). In the polemical situation, Daniells was not willing to accede
to Jones's claim that the dangers of authoritarianism and bureaucracy
were implicit in the organizational design that was being implemented
in 1903.

^Ibid., 64-70. White quoted a letter from his mother written

in 1902 in which she approved of the decentralization of power which
had been effected by the union organization aspect of the
reorganization in 1901. Ellen White had said: "The division of the
General Conference into District Union Conferences was God's
arrangement. In the work of the Lord in these last days there should
be no Jerusalem centers, no kingly power" (ibid., 68).
 197

personally been involved in the developments of the early 1860s and

considered that the same tendencies toward disorganization which had

been exhibited formerly were in evidence again. Loughborough even

claimed that "what astonished" him was that "the same identical

expressions that men used back there who fought organization--almost

word for word" were being used again.^

But Jones, Waggoner and many of their allies were not

convinced. They believed that the church was denying the principles

that had been the basis of organization in 1901 and that it was

opening the door to bureaucracy, following the same pattern of

organization as the Roman Catholic Church. Later, when organizational

polemics were strongest (in 1906 and 1907) it was the use of the title

"president" that was decried by Jones as an indication that the church

had denied New Testament principles in its choice of an organizational

system.1
2

One wonders why the question was never settled in the most

obvious manner. Why was Ellen White herself not consulted and asked

1Ibid, 77-90b.

2See A. T. Jones to A. G. Daniells, 26 January 1906, RG 11,

1910 [sic] A. T. Jones Folder, GCAr; Jones, A Final Word. 31-35; idem,
An Appeal Presented before the General Conference of Seventh-dav
Adventists at Takoma Park, Washington. D.C.. May 27. 1909 (n.p.,
1909). For further insight into the attitudes of A. G. Daniells and
a later explanation for the reasons for the re-emergence of the use of
the title of "president," see General Conference Committee, Statement.
17-19; and A. G. Daniells to C. C. Nicola, 30 July 1906, RG 11, 1906-
A. G. Daniells Folder, GCAr. In the former, Daniells calls the action
taken at the 1901 General Conference session to give the prerogative
for selecting its chairman to the committee "a step toward
disorganization" (General Conference Committee, Statement. 17). For
insight into W. C. White's later attitude, see W. C. White to A. G.
Daniells, 13 August 1906, RG 11, 1906-W Folder 2, GCAr.
 198

to give an explanation of precisely what was meant by that one

sentence that she wrote in 1896--the sentence that was so troublesome

and used as the basis for the position of Jones and his allies?

In the first place, Ellen White did not enter into debate over

the form and the structure of the denomination. She had the

opportunity to do so in her address to the assembled leaders of the

denomination in the Battle Creek College library the day before the

opening of the 1901 session, but she chose to refer only to principles

of organization. She had the same opportunity the next day on the

floor of the session but instead she told the delegates that "just how

it [the strengthening or reorganization of the conference] is to be

accomplished I cannot say."^ Her consistent attitude was that her

function was to discuss principles. It was the function of the church

in session to come to consensus regarding how those principles were to

be applied. Whenever she referred to specific elements of structure,

she did not mean that her reference or approval deemed those

structures sacrosanct, but that they were appropriate (or

inappropriate as the case may be) for the principles which she

espoused.

Second, Ellen White encouraged the leaders and theologians of

the church to think theologically and arrive at consistent theological

foundations for the principles of organization in the church. It was

never her declared purpose to initiate theological positions on behalf

of the church. That function always was the function of the church

itself. It was her purpose to direct the attention of the church to

^GC Bulletin 1901, 25. See also page 164 above.

 199

the Bible from which theological foundations and principles of

organization could be derived. Both those allied with Jones, and

those allied with Daniells fell into the trap of misusing her

statements in order to attempt to substantiate their respective

positions on the form of the organizational structure when they should

have been substantiating them on the basis of sound theological and

biblical reasoning. Jones did so with reference to the selection of a

"chairman" rather than a "president." Daniells did so, but less

convincingly, with reference to the use of the mosaic plan of

organization as an illustration of the "perfect" form of church

government.

Regardless of her attitude to the delineation of structures or

the initiation of theological foundations for those structures, Ellen

White did not disparage the use of the title "president." In a

"testimony" written on 19 June 1899, almost three years after the one

which was used to decry the title of "president," Ellen White again

pointed out that "the work of the General Conference should never have

rested on one man." On that occasion she was referring to "work" and

not to title. Her contention was that no one person should be

expected to carry the workload and bear the responsibility for

decisions made that was being expected of the General Conference

president. She protested that the "President of the General

Conference" (emphasis supplied) had "altogether too many burdens for

one man to carry." That such had been the case had "been presented

to" her "for years." She freely referred to the leader of the General

Conference as "president" without any intimation that the use of that

 200

title was inappropriate or that it negated other principles which

could have been determinative of structural form.^

Again in 1904, after the discussions of the 1903 General

Conference session, Ellen White wrote to two of those who supported

the minority report submitted by the committee on plans and

constitution. Referring to the "last General Conference [1903]" she

said that "the situation was a most trying one," and that "there

needed to be chosen as President a man who was in harmony with the

work that God was trying to do through the Testimonies" (emphasis

supplied). The issue for Ellen White was not the title, but the

function and use of the office. In the same letter she affirmed her

support for the election of Daniells to the presidency of the General

O
Conference as "the man for the place.

But for Jones the title seemed to assume such proportions that

it became the symbol of the success or failure of his quest for

reform. He appears to have regarded the rejection of his proposal to

use the title "chairman," as the symbol of the rejection of all the

principles of reorganization that he espoused. Ever since the General

Conference session in 1897 Jones and Waggoner, by their insistence

that the church consider theological foundations for organizational

structure, had had a marked influence on the direction that

reorganization took. With the reinstatement of the title "president,"

-*-Ellen G. White, "Words of Counsel Regarding the Management of

the Work of God," MS 91, 1899, EGWB-AU.

^Ellen G. White to P. T. Magan and E. A Sutherland, 23 July

1904, Letter 255, 1904, EGWB-AU.
 201

Jones and Waggoner both recognized that the church was moving in an

entirely different direction from that which they had intended.

After that reversal at the General Conference session in 1903,

despite his intention to uphold unity in the church, Jones gradually

became more outspoken. His attacks on the leadership of the church

were more often made in the public forum.

The Response of Ellen G, White to Reorganization

and the Structure of the Denomination

From Satisfaction to Despair

At first, Ellen White had been pleased with the direction that

the reform in organization took in 1901. In retrospect, she expressed

satisfaction that

during the General Conference [of 1901], the Lord wrought mightily
for His people. Every time I think of that meeting, a sweet
solemnity comes over me, and sends a glow of gratitude to my soul.
We have seen the stately steppings of the Lord our Redeemer. We
praise His holy name; for He has brought deliverance to His
people.^

But her gratitude soon changed to despair--the same despair

that had been expressed repeatedly during the decade past. By 1903

centralization was again being condemned by her in terms of the

exercise of "kingly power," the same terminology that she had used

before reorganization. It had been necessary to organize union

conferences, she asserted, in order that the General Conference should

not "exercise dictation" over all the separate conferences. Power was

not to be "centered in one man" or in a small group of men. Yet,

-*-Ellen G. White, "Bring an Offering to the Lord," RH, 26

November 1901, 761-62. See also, GC Bulletin. 1901, 463-64; Ellen G.
White, "Bring an Offering to the Lord," MS 48, 1901, EGWB-AU.
 202

having briefly recounted the abuses of the past which she had hoped

had been eliminated by reorganization, she emphatically stated that

the General Conference had again "fallen into strange ways," and that

there was "reason to marvel . . . that judgement" had not fallen.^

Nine days after expressing her surprise that the judgment of

God had not fallen on the denomination she wrote to Daniells himself.

With the 1903 General Conference session behind them she warned him to

"be careful how we press our opinions upon those whom God has

instructed. . . . Brother Daniells, God would not have you suppose

that you can exercise kingly power over your brethren.^ She was to

find it necessary to continue to give Daniells and other conference

officers the same reproof in the years to come.

■*-Ellen G. White, "Regarding Work of General Conference," MS

26, 1903, EGWB-AU. Ellen White wrote these words on 3 April 1903
while the General Conference was in session at Oakland, California.

^Ellen G. White to Elder Daniells and His Fellow Workers, 12

April 1903, Letter 49, 1903, EGWB-AU; See also Ellen G. White to E.
R. Palmer, 21 May 1903, Letter 92, 1903, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White,
"Principles for the Guidance of Men in Positions of Responsibility,"MS
140, 1902, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to A. G. Daniells, 1 March 1903,
Letter 4, 1903, EGWB-AU.

^Ellen G. White to Elders Daniells and Evans, 23 September

1907, Letter 314, 1907, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to A. G. Daniells and
W. C. White, 30 December 1907, Letter 2, 1907, EGWO-DC; Ellen G.
White to The Leading Ministers in California, 6 December 1909, Letter
172, 1909, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White, "The Work Hindered by Lack of
Faith," MS 117, 1907, EGWO-DC; W. C. White to A. G. Daniells, 11
January 1907, RG 11, Incoming Letters 1907-W Folder 1, GCAr. Another
reason for the tendency toward centralization of authority arose from
the fact that reorganization required more administrative personnel
than previous to 1901. At the 1901 General Conference session
Daniells himself had expressed the desire to have "as many laborers of
this denomination in the field in personal contact with the masses,
preaching the gospel to them as we possibly can"(GC Bulletin. 1901,
228-29). Yet, by 1906 Daniells was arguing that the increase in
administrative personnel was an indication that indeed
decentralization had taken place. He stated that the "managing force"
 203

Lamenting what "might have been," she wrote to Judge Jesse

Arthur at the beginning of 1903:

The result of the last General Conference has been the

greatest, the most terrible sorrow of my life. No change was
made. The spirit that should have been brought into the whole
work as a result of that meeting, was not brought in because men
did not receive the testimonies of the Spirit of God. As they
went to their several fields of labor, they did not walk in the
light that the Lord had flashed upon their pathway, but carried
into their work the wrong principles that had been prevailing in
the work at Battle Creek.

When Ellen White said that "no change was made," she was

referring to the spiritual renewal and focus on the mission of the

church that she had hoped would accompany structural reorganization.

She had repeatedly called for such renewal. She was not simply

referring to the structures of church organization. Significant*

8

had "been strengthened by the addition of over 500 of the most

experienced and capable persons that could be selected" (General
Conference Committee, Statement. 22-23, emphasis supplied). See also
A. G. Daniells, "A Statement of Facts Concerning Our Present
Situation--No. 8," 29 March 1906, 7; idem, "A Statement of Facts
Concerning Our Present Situation--No. 9," 5 April 1906, 7. The GC
Bulletin of May 14 1909, indicated that drawing into administration
over five hundred persons who had not been there before greatly
increased "the efficiency" of the administration. GC Bulletin. 1909,
8. In addition to conference administrators, Daniells pointed out
that proper administration of institutions had demanded that even more
people be added to the administrative staff of the church.

^-Ellen G. White to Jesse Arthur, 14 January 1903, Letter 17,

1903, EGWB-AU. Writing to A. G. Daniells a few days earlier Ellen
White told him that she "thought of where we might have been had
thorough work been done at the last General Conference. An agony of
disappointment came over me as I realized that what I had witnessed
[in a dream in which all was peace and harmony] was not' a reality"
(Ellen G. White to A. G. Daniells, 5 January 1903, Letter 7, 1903,
EGWB-AU). See also, GC Bulletin. 1903, 31; Ellen G. White to A. G.
Daniells, 5 January 1903, Letter 5, 1903, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White,
"Unity of Effort," MS 16, 1903, EGWB-AU. Although some of Ellen
White's disappointment was with specific reference to incidents which
had occurred in connection with the publishing and the medical work,
she also focused her attention on the failures of the leaders of the
General Conference themselves.
 204

structural change had been made at the General Conference session in

1901. Those changes were intended to resolve the problems of

centralization which had been the direct result of "wrong principles .

. . in the work at Battle Creek.” Perhaps she had been looking for a

reformation far more pervasive than administrative refinement.

Certainly the theological and organizational turmoil since mid-1902

had distressed her. In either case, her lament to Arthur "that

matters in Battle Creek are in a most precarious condition" indicated

that structural form was not as important to her as spiritual renewal

and sound principles of administration. Principle, rather than form

was her agenda.

Despite her disappointment Ellen White was not about to sever

her connection with the denomination. Her reproofs, directed towards

the leaders of the church, were not those of a divisive opponent but

those of a loyal supporter. She certainly did not condone tendencies

to disorganize the church. She affirmed that organization would

always be needed in the church and that the structures would become
O
more "systematic" as time passed.

^-Ellen G. White to Jesse Arthur, 14 January 1903, Letter 17,

1903, EGWB-AU. That Ellen White's remarks addressed to Arthur were
intended to refer to leaders of the church in general and not only to
those who were aligned with Kellogg or Jones is indicated by the tenor
of several letters that were written about the same time. For
example, a few days before, she had written to Daniells: "This is a
warning that comes to all, especially to those in positions of trust:
'Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall'" (Ellen G.
White to A. G. Daniells, 5 January 1903, Letter 5, 1903, EGWB-AU).

^Ellen G. White to E. J. Waggoner, 27 December 1892, Letter

27a, EGWB-AU.
 205

Ellen G. White and the Possibility

of Subsequent Structural Change

Ellen White had been calling for urgent and radical change

throughout the 1890s. In Australia she had been isolated from the

headquarters at Battle Creek and at the same time been made aware of

the struggles, financial hardship, and cultural strangeness of the

mission field. Her experience there helped to sharpen her perception

of the ineptitude and inadequacy of the organizational system of the

church.

But her call for reform, unlike that of Jones and his

associates and unlike that of Daniells and his allies, was not a call

which emerged only from one particular theological perspective. Her

balanced theological perspective cast her in a mediatorial role from

which she was able to address the strengths and weaknesses of all.

During the first decade of the twentieth century her support

for the position of Daniells and the elected leaders of the church

increased as the theological positions of Jones and those with him

became more unbalanced. Even so, she was quite prepared to register

her disapproval of administrative abuses and affirm that change should

be expected from time to time as the shape and needs of the church

developed.

For example, soon after the General Conference session of

1901, Ellen White wrote to A. G. Daniells regarding the work among the

"colored people" in the South. She admonished Daniells to be flexible

in his administration because of the unique needs of the South. The

church was not to become "narrow" and confined by "regular lines."

Different methods of organization and approach were necessary in

 206

culturally diverse situations.^ For administration to be tied to an

inflexible, predetermined policy which could not adapt to diverse

cultural and sociological needs was, for Ellen White, an abuse of

administrative prerogative.

The very same day, Ellen White wrote to her son Edson, who was

working in the south. Edson was inclined to be too adventurous with

his innovations. Whereas Daniells the administrator had to be

counselled to allow change and innovation in a different socio­

cultural milieu, Edson had to be cautioned not to be too hasty. Ellen

White wrote,

You need now to be able to think and judge with clear

discrimination. Great care must be exercised in making changes
which differ from the old-established routine. Changes are to be
made. but they are not to be made in such an abrupt manner that
you will not carry the people with you.
You who are working in the South must labor as if in a foreign
country. You must work as pioneers, seeking to save expense in
every way possible. And above all, you must study to show
yourselves approved unto God.^ (Emphasis supplied).

This letter, written with reference to the demands of cultural

diversity, indicates that Ellen White expected and, in fact, advocated

change, but that such change should be implemented with a great deal

of care and sensitivity.

It is true that Ellen White gave the structural form that was

implemented as a result of reorganization in 1901-1903 her support.

It is not true that she gave it her unqualified support. Nor is it

true that she intended to be specific in her endorsement. She spoke

■*-Ellen G. White to A. G. Daniells, 30 June 1901, Letter 65,

1901, EGWB-AU.

^Ellen G. White to J. Edson White, 30 June 1901, Letter 62,

1901, EGWB-AU. See also, Crisler, The Value of Organization. 14-17
 207

in terms of the principles of reorganization, not in terms of the

specifics of structure. For her, the specifics were always adaptable

to the needs of time and place. The principles, however, were non-

negotiable.

That such was the case was demonstrated with reference to the

endorsements that Ellen White continually gave to the organizational

system in the church. Even when, during the 1890s, she was so

outspoken in her criticism of the centralization of location and

decision making authority at Battle Creek, the practices of the

leaders of the church, and the failure of the committees and boards to

ensure proper representation in their composition, she was still loyal

to the church. Ellen White may have made it entirely clear that for

most of the decade she did not regard the General Conference as the

voice of God and therefore did not grant to that body an unconditional

authority which could not be transcended. Nevertheless she was a

supporter of principles of organization.

In late 1892 Ellen White wrote to the General Conference in

session. Her letter was read by 0. A. Olsen, president of the General

Conference. She wrote:

We had a hard struggle in establishing organization. Not

withstanding that the Lord gave testimony after testimony upon
this point, the opposition was strong, and it had to be met again
and again. But we knew that the Lord God of Israel was leading
us, and guiding by his providence. We engaged in the work of
organization and marked prosperity attended the advance movement.
. . . The system of organization has proved a grand success.
Systematic benevolence was entered into according to Bible plans.
The body "has been compacted by that which every joint supplieth."
As we have advanced our system of organization has proved
effectual.
In some parts of the work, it is true, the machinery has been
made too complicated; especially has this been the case in the
tract and missionary work; the multiplication of rules and
 208

regulations made is needlessly burdensome. An effort should be

made to simplify the work, so as to avoid all needless labor and
perplexity.
The business of our Conference sessions has sometimes been
burdened down with propositions and resolutions that were not at
all essential, and that would never have been presented if the
sons and daughters of God had been walking carefully and
prayerfully before him. The fewer rules and regulations that we
can have, the better will be the effect in the end. When they are
made, let them be carefully considered, and, if wise, let it be
seen that they mean something, and are not to become a dead
letter. Do not, however, encumber any branch of the work with
unnecessary, burdensome restrictions and the inventions of men.
In this period of the world's history with the vast work that is
before us, we need to observe the greatest simplicity, and the
work will be stronger for its simplicity.
Let none entertain the thought, however, that we can dispense
with organization. It has cost us much study, and many prayers
for wisdom that we know God has answered, to erect this structure.
It has been built up by his direction, through much sacrifice and
conflict. Let none of our brethren be so deceived as to attempt
to tear it down, for you will thus bring in a condition of things
that you do not dream of. In the name of the Lord. I declare to
you that it is to stand strengthened, established, and settled.
At God's command, "Go forward," we advanced when the difficulties
to be surmounted made the advance seem impossible. We know how
much it has cost to work out God's plans in the past, which have
made us as a people what we are. Then let everyone be exceedingly
careful not to unsettle minds in regard to those things that God
has ordained for our prosperity and success in advancing his
cause.1 (Emphasis supplied).

This portion of Ellen White's letter to the General Conference

session in 1893 has been often used by Seventh-day Adventists in an

attempt to legitimize the structures of their church and to imply that

they should not be changed.^ However the appropriateness of that

usage must be seriously questioned.

^■Ellen G. White to Brethren of the General Conference, 19

December 1892, Letter 32, 1892, EGWB-AU; GC Bulletin. 1893, 20-25.

^See, for example, W. P. Bradley, "Perfectly Joined Together,

R H . 22 March 1951, 8-10; B. E. Leach, "Unions: Why They're There," 6-
part series in Southwestern Union Record. 26 April 1984, 12p; 10 May
1984, 12p; 24 May 1984, 16p; 7 June 1984, 12p; 21 June 1984, 12h; 21
June 1984, 12i.
 209

In her letter in 1893, Ellen White said that the

organizational structure of the church was to stand "strengthened,

established, and settled" (emphasis supplied). If by her assertion

she was referring to the principles of organization then she was being

consistent in her practice of leaving to those in positions of

responsibility the details of structure, while endorsing the

endurability of the principles which had been established in the

1860s.

If she was referring specifically to the structures as they

stood in 1893, however, we are posed with a dilemma. How could Ellen

White speak of structures standing "strengthened, established, and

settled." when at the same time she was speaking so strongly against

centralization in the organization? Even more significantly, how

could she advocate and endorse the radical change that was necessary

in 1901? The structures did not remain settled. Within eight years

they were changed, with her endorsement. Either she was talking of

principles in 1893, or she was affirming that, while principles should

be non-negotiable, structures were adaptable to time and place. Or

she was referring to both.1

That she was referring to principles, and that she was

affirming that structures were adaptable to both time and place is

further borne out by a later use of the letter which was written in

1892 and read to the General Conference session in 1893. Her letter

was reprinted in the Review and Herald of 1907. The intention of the

^See J. N. Loughborough, "The Church: Caution to the Church,"

EH, 23 July 1901, 469-70.
 210

editors was to bolster up the position of the church administration

with reference to the structures that had been adopted in 1901-1903.

It seems somewhat ironic, however, that the letter used to support

union conference organization was written before the structures had

been defined in their current form; before there ever was a union

conference. While it can be assumed that Ellen White gave her

approval to that reprint, such can only be the case if she understood

her counsel to be based on principle, and that structures were

adaptable.

Another example of her focus on principle rather than form was

a declaration in 1899 that the features of the work were to remain

settled. With reorganization only two years away she could not have

been referring to form. She knew from first hand experience of the

success of the union structure in Australia. She also was painfully

aware of the inadequacy of the structures which still existed at the

General Conference. How then could she advocate no changes in the

"features of the work?" Changes came rapidly and radically. The

likelihood that Ellen White was referring to principles, certainly not

to the specific structures that were adopted in 1901 and 1903 is one

explanation. Another explanation takes the context of her statement

into consideration. The context indicates that organization was not

her principle focus when she made the statement. She was more

concerned with the foundational doctrines of the church. Contention

that she was discussing organizational structures can only be inferred

 211

from the text and not affirmed with certainty.^

Reorganization of structure for Ellen White was consistent

with the establishment and maintenance of the principles of

organization that were themselves non-negotiable. Time and place were

the conditioning factors which were to determine how the principles

were to be implemented. Unity was to be preserved, but not at the

expense of the highest regard for diversity. The principle of

decentralization, the principle which was stressed more than any other

in 1901 was to be consistently maintained because it held within

itself the possibility of continuous change. Ellen White could see

that the church was growing beyond the bounds of North America. She

was experienced in culturally diverse situations. She could not

endorse principles or structures which would impose uniformity on the

church in the name of unity.

Ironically, the very statement which affirmed her commitment

to diversity has been often used to imply that she endorsed uniformity

'"Ellen G. White, "The Work for This Time," MS3, 1899,

EGWB-AU. When portion of this letter was reprinted in the sixth
volume of Testimonies for the Church, the word "general" was added
before the word features (Ellen G. White, Testimonies. 6:17). This
sentence has been used to support the immutability of the specific
structure of the church (See Beach, "Reflections on Denominational
Structure," 16). Ellen White was not even discussing structure. In
the context she does not even appear to be discussing organization.
She was discussing the doctrines of the church. But even if she were
discussing structure, general features refer to principles, not
specifics. And even if she were referring to structural principles,
the statement was written two years before 1901 and thus does not give
specific endorsement to a change that was made two years later.
Another explanation must be found than the one given which attempts to
support the specifics of current church structure by the use of this
statement.
 212

in structure.^ Ellen White wrote in November 1901:

Too much power is invested in humanity when matters are so

arranged that one man, or a small group of men have it in their
power to rule or to ruin the work of their fellow-laborers. In
the erection of medical institutions and the development of their
work, there is not to be a ruling, kingly power, as there has been
in the past. The kingly power formerly exhibited in the General
Conference is not to be perpetuated. The publishing work is not
to be a kingdom of itself. It is essential that the principles
that govern in General Conference affairs shall be maintained in
the management of the publishing work and the sanitarium work. No
one is to think that the branch of work with which he is connected
is of vastly more importance than other branches.
The division of the General Conference into District Union
Conferences was God's arrangement. In the work of the Lord for
these last days there are to be no Jerusalem centers, no kingly
power. And the work in the different countries is not to be tied
up by contracts to the work centering in Battle Creek; for this is
not God's plan. Brethren are to counsel together; for we are just
as much under the control of God in one part of His vineyard as in
another. Brethren are to be one in heart and soul, even as Christ
and the Father are one. Teach this, practice this, that we may be
one with Christ in God, all working to build up one another.^

These paragraphs which were written on 27 November 1901, seven

months after the General Conference session, pointed to a danger which

still existed--the danger of failing to implement the principle of

decentralization in all the features of the church organization.

Ellen White wrote in a manner which was conducive to unity, not

disunity. But her burden was that there should not be any centers of

kingly power. Her implication was that such concentrations of power

would supplant the possibility of that unity which was to be a symbol

of the relationship in the Godhead.

!-See Bert B. Beach, "The Role of Unions in the Framework of

the Present Denominational Structure" (Paper prepared for the
Commission on the Role and Function of Denominational Organizations,
1983, RG 500, Monographs Series, GCAr), 9; Leach, "Unions," 21 June
1984, 12i_.

^Ellen G. White, "Unheeded Warnings, II," MS 156B, 1901,

EGWB-AU.
 213

The reference to "District Union Conferences" was incidental.

The word "decentralization" could be substituted for the phrase "the

division of the General Conference in District Union Conferences," and

the meaning of the whole paragraph would not be changed at all. That

Ellen White was not attempting to be definitive is indicated by her

combination of two designations--"district" and "union." She was not

at all endorsing one or the other. The districts had not been union

conferences. They had been the forerunners of union conferences. But

that was not the essential point for her. The essential point was

that a division of responsibility had been made and that division was

God’s arrangement. Kingly power in the administration of the church

was not to be tolerated. Uniformity and unwillingness to make

necessary adaptations were exactly the opposite to that which she had

in mind. The work throughout the world was not to be tied in rigid

conformity to the control of headquarters.^

A statement that was made in 1905 has also been used to

contend that to diverge from the structure of the church would be to

apostatize from the truth.^ The statement appears below in its

context:

Those who took part in the establishment of our work upon a

foundation of Bible truth, those who know the waymarks that have
pointed out the right path, are to be regarded as workers of the
highest value. They can speak from personal experience, regarding
the truths entrusted to them. These men are not to permit their

^See also, Special Commission on Church Structure [appointed

by the Pacific Union Conference], "Church Organization Structure In-
Depth Study," vol. 1, "Findings and Recommendations, June 1, 1983," 284.

^See, for example, Leach, "Unions," 12i; Bert B. Beach,

"Windows of Vulnerability," RH, 2 August 1984, 3-5; idem, "The Role of
Unions," 8.
 214

faith to be changed to infidelity; they are not to permit the

banner of the third angel to be taken from their hands. They are
to hold the beginning of their confidence firm unto the end.
The Lord has declared that the history of the past shall be
rehearsed as we enter upon the closing work. Every truth that He
has given for these last days is to be proclaimed to the world.
Every pillar that has been established is to be strengthened. We
cannot now step off the foundation that God has established. We
cannot now enter into any new organization; for this would mean
apostasy from the truth. The medical missionary work needs to be
purified and cleansed from everything that would weaken the faith
of believers in the past experience of the people of God. Eden,
beautiful Eden, was degraded by the introduction of sin. There is
need now to rehearse the experience of the men who acted a part in
the establishment of our work at the beginning.^

When this manuscript was released by the White Estate as MS

Release No. 65, it was retyped and in that form inserted into Selected

Messages: Book II. In the retyping, a paragraph break was inserted

after the phrase "apostasy from the truth." In Selected Messages the

second half of the paragraph was not even quoted and the selection was

concluded with that phrase. Had the whole paragraph been included,

the break in the paragraph at that point would have given the previous

sentence and the following sentence more emphasis than they had as

originally typed. But to omit the rest of the paragraph, to select

only a short portion of the manuscript, and to head the selection "No

New Organization," was a distortion of the author's original meaning.^

The context of the statement indicates that Ellen White's

reference was to two things. First, she was referring in the

manuscript to the experiences "of the men who acted a part in the

^Ellen G. White, "Steadfast unto the End," MS 129, 1905,

EGWB-AU.

^Ibid.; Ellen G. White, "Steadfast Unto the End." MS 129,

1905, MS Release No. 65, EGWB-AU; idem, Selected Messages: Book II
(Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1958), 389-90.
 215

establishment of our work at the beginning." Her reference to

organization was to the establishment of the principles of

organization back in the 1860s in the context of the pillars of truth

then established; not to the specific form adopted in 1901. Form was

important and she did not say that radical changes were necessary at

that time, but her reference on that occasion was to principles

established at the beginning; not unions, or departments or any other

aspect of the form. Further, her reference was conditioned by the

attacks that had been made on the principles of organization at that

time (since the confrontation in 1902), particularly by those aligned

with Kellogg and his medical missionary work. The reference to the

medical missionary work continues right on in the same paragraph to

illuminate the meaning of the previous sentence with its passing

reference to organization. Within a few weeks after Ellen White wrote

this manuscript, Jones wrote the letter to Daniells which was the

basis of Some History, Some Experiences, and Some Facts.^

Ellen White again affirmed her commitment to the need for

organization at the beginning of 1907. On that occasion, with the

controversy being fueled by the opponents of the reorganized

structures of the church, Ellen White appealed for harmony and order

in the discussions regarding organization. She was concerned that the

organization itself not be broken down by "disorderly elements" that

■'■A. T. Jones to A. G. Daniells, 26 January 1906, RG 11, 1910

[file] A. T. Jones Folder, GCAr. If Ellen White was unequivocally
stating that to change the system of organization would be to
apostatize from the truth, why did the General Conference feel free to
introduce divisional sections in 1913. Was that considered to be
apostasy?
 216

were seeking to control the church. Again, she was supportive of the

"system of organization and order" that had "been built up by wise,

careful labor." But she was not addressing the issue of uniformity or

the unchangeable nature of the structure that had been erected.^

Ellen White at no time attempted to dictate a specific form.

She left that to others.^ Her work was to support the principles of

organization and to expound those principles which were in harmony

with the purposes and nature of the church. She did not demand nor

support the absolute necessity of uniformity of structure. She was

committed to unity in diversity. Sometimes those who have attempted

to interpret her intention have been so careful to strain out the gnat

that they have altogether missed the camel.

Conclusion

The 1890s were a period of turmoil for the Seventh-day

Adventist Church. Numerical and institutional growth was experienced

in a context of organizational upheaval as administrators endeavored

to find organizational structures which would facilitate the ongoing

mission of the church. The structures that had been adopted in 1860-

1863 were no longer adequate to accommodate the needs of the church.

Not only was the church growing numerically and institutionally, but

since 1874 it had been also growing internationally.

During that period of transition, the church was sustained by

■*-Ellen G. White, Testimonies to the Church Regardine

Individual Responsibility and Christian Unity (Mountain View, Calif.:
The California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1907), 19-20.

^See GC Bulletin. 1903, 25. See also, page 164 above.

 217

its youthful vitality, optimistic hope, sense of divine providence,

and commitment to the evangelization of the world. Despite

uncertainty there were those within the church who were prepared to

experiment with new organizational structures which would facilitate

the internationalization of the church and the success of mission.

Those developments, which in 1901 culminated in a reorganized

administrative structure in the Seventh-day Adventist Church are to be

understood as a continuum, not as isolated events.

It has been the purpose of these two chapters to document some

of the practical problems faced by the church in the 1890s which made

reorganization imperative, and to describe the innovations and

conflicts which were part of the reorganization process in 1901-1903.

The purpose of chapter four is to examine in detail the theological

considerations that were so important to the determination of the form

that the reorganized structure assumed at that time.

 CHAPTER IV

THE THEOLOGICAL BASIS OF REORGANIZATION1

Introduction

Before a conference system of organization was adopted by the

Seventh-day Adventist Church in the early 1860s, there had been much

debate about the need for organization.^ Before reorganization in

1901 there was no serious consideration of the need for organization

as such. Church leaders were agreed that organization was necessary.

What had become apparent during the 1890s was that in order for the

church to continue to grow, the form of organization which the church

had adopted needed refinement and adjustment. Thus it was a question

of form--the form that the organizational structures of the church

should assume--that was the focus of reorganization.

Church leaders did not think that organizational refinement

and adjustment should be made in a haphazard fashion, however. They

1When the terms "theological," "ecclesiological,"

"soteriological," and eschatological" are used with reference to the
schemes of A. T. Jones and A. G. Daniells, it should be understood
that those terms are being used in a less -than-precise manner. The
thought of those who were allied with Daniells was not systematized in
a theological manner. They thought in terms of doctrines and biblical
examples rather than in theological categories. Although Jones and
his associates were more theological in their approach, even they were
not systematic in the strictest sense.

^See Mustard, "James White and Organization," 116-61;

Anderson, "Sectarianism and Organization, 1846-1864," 36-65; Schwarz,
Light Bearers. 86-103.

218
 219

often spoke of the need for undergirding principles--not only those

principles which were foundational to structural forms but many other

principles which informed the attitudes and positions which the church

adopted on a whole variety of issues.^ Yet, in spite of their

insistence on the necessity of "principles," Seventh-day Adventists

did not develop systematic theological positions which provided a

framework by which their principles could be prioritized. They had

concentrated their attention on those distinctive doctrines which gave

legitimacy to their independence and existence as a denomination.

They were too preoccupied by their own rapid expansion to take time to

find consensus on a distinctive ecclesiology.^

It is not surprising, therefore, that investigation of the

historical data reveals different viewpoints regarding the selection

of theological material to be used to support reorganization of

denominational structures. Those differing positions were

concentrated around two foci. On the one hand there were those--

represented especially by A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner, D. J. Paulson,

-*-For amplification of the discussion of "principles" see the

"Introduction" to chapter 5.
O
Such a situation was to be expected of a young, rapidly
growing church. At the 1888 General Conference session an attempt was
made to try and persuade the church to think theologically. The focus
of attention was soteriology. Those responsible for the initiatives
shown at that session were A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner. Shortly
after 1888, Jones and Waggoner were describing theological images and
concepts which they believed defined the nature of the church. With
their interest in the "church" they also began to describe structural
forms which they were convinced should be derived from their
ecclesiology. While it cannot be said that Jones and Waggoner
developed a comprehensive ecclesiology, it is true that they were more
systematic in their treatment of the biblical data which related to
ecclesiology than were their contemporaries within the denomination.
 220

Percy T. Magan, and for a time, W. W. Prescott--who were anxious that

a set of theological principles which arose from their consideration

of the priesthood of believers, the headship of Christ, the church as

the body of Christ, and spiritual gifts determine the form of

organization. They concentrated on those theological images which

emphasized the local nature of the church and overlooked to a large

extent those which emphasized the universal nature of the church.

They did not wish to have any one person named as "president" of the

General Conference. They were concerned that calling a man

"president" detracted from the headship of Christ and removed the

focus of attention from the mystical nature of the church to the

human, visible nature of the church.

On the other hand, there were those--represented especially by

A. G. Daniells, W. C. White, and W. A. Spicer--who maintained that the

church was not only local but also universal in nature. For them, the

universal unity of the church took priority over the individuality and

diversity of its constituent local congregations and individual

members. They did not deny that Christ was the head of the church,

that the church was his body, that there were spiritual gifts given to

the church, and that the reformation principle of the priesthood of

believers was important to Seventh-day Adventists. It was just that

they did not take into consideration the possibility that

organizational principles derived from emphasis on those theological

concepts could facilitate the task of the church. That task was the

transmission of the gospel, as Seventh-day Adventists understood it,

to the world. For them the task informed their concept of the church.
 221

For Jones and his associates, their concept of the church informed the

task.

It is beyond the scope of this dissertation to trace in full

the theological and organizational conflict that existed between those

who were allied with Daniells and those who were allied with Jones

during the last years of the nineteenth century and the first decade

of the twentieth. That task awaits further research. It is the

purpose of this chapter to describe and evaluate those theological

presuppositions which were foundational to the organizational

structures that were adopted by the church during the process of

reorganization by comparing the theological foci of Jones and his

associates with those of Daniells and his associates.

The Theological Foundations for Organization as

Perceived bv A, T. Jones and His Associates:
The Christocentric Model

A Theological Foundation

It was Jones's contention that the organizational form of

the denomination, both before 1901 and after 1903, was founded on

principles which bore insufficient relationship to New Testament

Christianity.^ At the same time, he believed that the scheme of

!jones and his associates had a considerable impact on the

determination of form at the 1901 General Conference session.
Although not totally satisfied, they were gratified by the apparent
response to their calls for reform. Insofar as they were each calling
for reorganization, the "Jones camp" and the "Daniells camp" formed a
brief, albeit somewhat tenuous, alliance at that time. The alliance
did not last beyond mid-1902, however. Later (1906-1909), Jones wrote
a series of pamphlets in which he expressed his grievances with the
denomination, and particularly with its failure to provide adequate
theological grounds for its position. The denomination replied to the
first of these. See Jones, Some History. Some Experiences, and Some
Facts: General Conference Committee, Statement: Jones, A Final Word:
 222

organization that he promoted was derived almost exclusively from the

New Testament. He endeavored to support his proposal by developing a

particular ecclesiological viewpoint which he contended was the only

viable alternative if the New Testament was to be taken seriously. He

particularly related his ecclesiology to his soteriology and his

eschatology.

Soteriology

Jones and Waggoner had been the leading proponents of a fresh

understanding of righteousness by faith at the Minneapolis General

Conference session in 1888. It was immediately after that session

that the General Conference executive committee took its first major

step towards organizational reform by dividing the territory of North

America into four districts. Within twenty years, both Jones and

Waggoner were to leave the church, not because of the attitudes of

opponents to the doctrine of righteousness by faith, or even because

of debates concerning the nature of the law in Galatians. The issue

which appears to have been debated by them more than any other single

issue, at least at General Conference sessions between 1897 and 1903,

was organizational reform.

But organizational reform was not conceived in terms of

sociological, governmental, or managerial categories by Jones and his

associates. It was always envisaged in relation to theological

presuppositions which were irrevocable for the determination of form.

Of those theological categories, their understanding of soteriology

idem, An Appeal.
 223

was prior to all others. Not only had Jones and Waggoner rediscovered

the meaning of righteousness by faith and justification by faith, in

particular, and expounded on their relevance and necessity to the

Seventh-day Adventist doctrinal scheme, but they made an attempt to

construct a theological system on a soteriological foundation. In

1897, Waggoner declared: "Justification by faith is not simply one

series or line of truth to be presented to the people. It is the

whole truth; it is the third angel's message; there is nothing else."^

By declaring that justification by faith was "the three

angel's message," they were insisting that their soteriology was

foundational to their ecclesiology and their proposals in regard to

church organization. It was the primary determinant of their

theological scheme. That meant that the soteriological relationship

of the individual with Christ was preeminent. When, at the Ottawa,

Kansas, campmeeting in 1889 Jones asked the question, "Who compose the

church?" he answered, "The members; those who believe in Christ."^

The church was defined by individuals who were in a salvific

relationship with Christ. Certainly the church was a corporate body,

but its corporate nature was always considered more as a function of

the individual, independent members and congregations that comprised

it. The church was a united body, but that unity was not to be

permitted to deprive each member of his or her independence,

XGC Bulletin. 1897, 253.

^Topeka, Kansas, Daily Capital. 16 May 1889. The Sermons

Preached at the Ottawa, Kans., campmeeting have been reprinted in The
1889 Campmeeting Sermons: As Found in the Topeka. Kansas Daily Capital
May 7-28, 1889 (St. Maries, Idaho: LMN Publications, 1987).
 224

individuality, and originality. Each had "a right to exercise every

part of his right in relation to Christ.

Reorganization, therefore, was not so much a function of the

corporate church as it was the responsibility of the individual church

member. Reorganization was related not only to the structures of the

denomination, but to the inner life of the individual. In his first

sermon at the 1901 General Conference session, Jones insisted that

a reorganization of the General Conference calls for a

reorganization of each individual Seventh-day Adventist throughout
the world. . . . Whomsoever it is that God shall reach by that
life of his, that is organization; and whomsoever he shall reach
by that life of his in greater measure, that is reorganization.*
2

In that same sermon, which Daniells later referred to as

"grand," Jones related the grace of God, present in the life of each

individual church member, to the organization of the church. Quoting

the second chapter of Ephesians, Jones pointed out that the basis of

membership in the church was the grace of God in the life and that it

was that grace which "joined" and "knitted" the body together into a

"building, built by the Head." Jones concluded; "That is

organization, that is reorganization. Come, brethren, let us be

reorganized.

At the next General Conference session in Oakland, California,

Jones again emphasized the soteriological foundation for ecclesiology.

Speaking on the significance of church membership, he applied the

^Ibid. See also the edition for 10 May 1889.

2GC Bulletin. 1901, 37-38.

^A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, 12 June 1901, Incoming Files,

EGWO-DC; GC Bulletin. 1901, 42.
 225

language of Dan 8:14 to personal regeneration and to church

membership. He exhorted the delegates at the session:

There is need of such a cleansing of the sanctuary . . . as will

finish transgression in the life of every Seventh-day Adventist,
will make an end of sins there, and will make reconciliation for
all the sins that have ever been there. . . .
Only that . . . can be any true cleansing of the sanctuary;
. . . and belonging to the church indeed as this is. the giving of
this message . . . can be accomplished in the generation that
remains.1 (Emphasis supplied).

The church was defined as those individuals who were

"cleansed." Its corporate existence was an expression of the sum of

the existence of each component part. The task of the church which

was to be accomplished in that generation was expressed as a function

°f each part, before it was considered attainable by the whole.

Their soteriological foundation meant that when Jones and

^aggoner described the church, they first described it in terms of its

divine characteristics--as a community of the saved, separated from

the realm of the world. No account was taken of other dimensions of

the church, especially its human or sociological nature. They

overlooked the reality that life in the church was not lived only in

terms of a mystical relationship to God, but in relationship to other

individuals, to family, to the church itself, and to the world. They

failed to realize that soteriology alone was not a sufficient

foundation from which to construct an ecclesiology.

1Sten 1903, "Sermon of Elder A. T. Jones, March 29, 1903," 29

March 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 38-39.
 226

Eschatology

The eschatological hope of Jones and Waggoner and their

associates grew, in turn, out of their emphasis on individualism and

righteousness by faith. When Jones preached on the seventh angel at

the 1903 General Conference session, he admitted that "one place"

where the mystery of God was to be finished was "the world itself."

However, much more essential was the finishing of the mystery in "the

lives of the believers." He contended that

if the manifestation of God in the lives of those who preach . . .

is not completed also, we could preach . . . ten thousand years
and the end would never come. . . . [The believer's] life is God
manifest[in the flesh], only that is the finishing of the mystery
of God in the way that it counts.

The next day E. J. Waggoner preached a sermon which he titled

"The Gospel of the Kingdom." He did not deny that the gospel had to

be preached to everyone. But like Jones, he emphasized that the

preaching was to be done with reference to the actions and reactions

of the individual. Waggoner went further than Jones, however. Not

only was "every act" and "every thought" crucial as the prospect of

the end was considered, but any preaching that was to be done was not

to be simply a story about Jesus, but "literally the preaching of the

Lord Jesus." By this Waggoner meant that in the preaching event it

was to be "the Lord Jesus Himself preaching.

By 1903, as the controversy over John Harvey Kellogg's

manuscript of the Living Temple was breaking on the church, Jones and

^■Sten 1903, "Sermon of Elder A. T. Jones, March 29, 1903," 29

March 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 33-34.

^Sten 1903, "The Gospel of the Kingdom," 30 March 1903, RG 0,

GCAr.
 227

his associates had already imbibed some of the immanentist notions

that were proposed in the book. Such notions assimilated well with

the soteriological and eschatological emphases that Jones and Waggoner

had maintained over the years. Eschatological introversion was very

much the corollary of soteriological individualism.

With the primary eschatological focus being turned inward, the

function of structural organization in the denomination was not seen

in terms of facilitation of the global mission of the church. A

global task expressed in terms of preparing every nation, kindred,

tongue and people for the eschaton was not as important to the

hastening of the coming of Christ as the attitude of the individual to

righteousness by faith. Organization was necessary, but its function

was seen more in relation to the individual's eschatological hope than

to any need for missionary urgency compelled by an imminent eschaton.

While Jones did not deny the need for mission, he had no extended

missionary experience outside the United States. Waggoner did have

missionary experience in Britain during the 1890s, but had no real

opportunity to imbibe an appreciation for the world-wide concept of

mission.

Ecclesiology

In the early post-1888 years, Jones chose to address one of

three subjects in most of his sermon series: righteousness by faith,

religious liberty, or church order and organization. His prominent

role at the 1888 General Conference session and his influence in the

denomination brought him into dialog with those who could not clearly

see the forensic nature of justification and its relationship to

 228

sanctification. As editor of the American Sentinel and executive

committee member of the National Religious Liberty Association, Jones

was called upon to address issues which threatened the liberty and

freedom of conscience of church members, especially during the late

1880s and early 1890s when Sunday laws in several states meant

imprisonment and persecution for some Seventh-day Adventists.^

But Jones's developing interest in church order and

organization did not arise in the context of organizational polemic

nor administrative function. He was not a member of the General

Conference executive committee until 1897 and was always so much in

demand as a speaker and writer that he was given no opportunity to

become deeply involved with the conference administration of the

church until then. Rather, his interest in organization derived

primarily from his theological understanding of the nature of the

church. What also may have molded his attitude towards organizational

^Reports regarding Sunday laws and their effects on Seventh-

day Adventists were especially prominent in the RH from 1885-1895.
Within that decade, the years 1889-1892 appear to have been the most
problematic, if the number of reports alone can be taken as a guide.
After 1895, apart from references to continuing problems in Tennessee
and some threats of legislation in other states and even overseas, the
problem of Sunday laws did not receive the attention in the RH that it
had earlier. No doubt this was partly due to the efforts of Jones
himself who appeared before the Senate Committee on Education and
Labor on 13 December 1888 and on 22 February 1889, in order to defend
the Sabbatarian position. Again he was involved as a key witness in
the defeat of the Breckenridge bill on 18 February 1890, and as an
outspoken opponent of the law which was signed into legislation
stipulating that federal appropriations for the Chicago World's Fair
in 1893 would not be paid unless the fair closed on Sundays. For
further description of the impact of Sunday law legislation on the
Seventh-day Adventist Church, see Everett Dick, "The Cost of
Discipleship: Seventh-day Adventists and Tennessee Sunday Laws in the
1890's," Adventist Heritage 11 (Spring 1986): 26-32; and Knight, From
1888 to Apostasy. 75-88.
 229

reform was the sustained opposition that he and Waggoner received from

many church leaders, including the president of the General

Conference, to their presentations of righteousness by faith and their

concept of the law in Galatians in 1888. Further, both he and

Waggoner were no doubt aware that Ellen White was becoming

increasingly outspoken regarding the centralizing tendencies of the

General Conference and the authoritarian administrative style of its

officers.

Whichever was the case, very soon after 1888 Jones was

preaching on the subject of ecclesiology and church order. At the

Ottawa, Kansas, campmeeting held just seven months after the

Minneapolis General Conference session Jones preached thirty-one

sermons. Only four of those were on righteousness by faith. Eleven

were on the church and its organization, and the rest were concerned

with subjects related to religious liberty. In the main, Jones's

discourses on the subject of the church were built around what were to

become the cardinal aspects of his ecclesiology--the church as the

body of Christ, the spiritual giftedness of the individual members of

the church, and the headship of Christ in the Church. Already, Jones

had begun to emphasize the concept of individuality--the concept which

was later to be expressed as the principle of self-government. He

stated that "Christ wants us to be ourselves and no one else." The

1For example, see Ellen G. White to Brethren Butler and

Haskell, 28 October 1885, Letter 12, 1885, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White to
A. Underwood, 10 January 1888, Letter 3, 1888, EGWB-AU; Ellen G.
White to G. I. Butler, 14 October 1888, Letter 21, 1888, EGWO-DC;
Ellen G. White to G. I. Butler, 15 October 1888, Letter 21a, 1888,
EGWB-AU. Also see above, 58-66.
 230

correct principle was that it was Christ's will that we be

"independent in our originality." He concluded that there should be

"independence of action," but "unity of purpose."^

In a series of seven sermons presented during and immediately

after the General Conference session in 1897, Jones substantiated his

ecclesiological viewpoint, which he had usually supported by

exposition from the New Testament, by referring to examples and

illustrations from the Old Testament. In one of the sermons--"The

Apostasy of Israel"--Jones pointed out that the essence of Israel's

apostasy was that they did not believe God. The evidence was that

they set up their own earthly form of government. The inference was

clear. To usurp the headship and character of Christ in the church by

setting up an organization with a human leader was also, in Jones's

view, apostasy.^ In his ecclesiology as well as in his soteriology

and eschatology, the person of Jesus Christ was the foundation of

Jones's scheme.^

^Topeka, Kansas, Daily Capital. 10 May 1889. The concept of

the church as the body of Christ was not wholly unknown in Seventh-day
Adventist literature before Jones began to preach it. In 1880, James
White wrote a short editorial in which he alluded to Paul's use "of
the several members of the human body to illustrate the members of the
church of Christ" (James White, "Bible Religion: The Church of Christ
Illustrated by the Human Body," RH, 15 April 1880, 248). But White
did not use the metaphor in order to discuss the nature of the church.
Rather his was a pragmatic concern--the need for church discipline and
the necessity to sometimes "cut off" members of the "body" in order to
preserve the health of the whole. It appears that Jones was the first
in the Seventh-day Adventist Church to develop the theological
implications of Pauline imagery beyond casual reference.

^The General Conference Bulletin (Quarterly), first quarter

1897, 40-45.

^Thus the choice of the term "christocentric model."

 231

At that General Conference session Jones was more than ably

supported by his long-time ally, E. J. Waggoner, and also by W. W.

Prescott. Waggoner preached a series of eighteen sermons on the book

of Hebrews. He often interspersed his remarks on the text of Hebrews

with his ideas of the direction that organizational reform should

take.l Prescott, who took a smaller series on the subject of

education, also took every opportunity to promote his views on

organization.

By 1903, however, it was apparent that Jones and Waggoner were

deriving an ecclesiastical viewpoint from their ecclesiology which was

irreconcilable with the form of organization that was being adopted by

the denomination. They held the position, for example, that the

headship of Christ over the church should not be detached from the

actual organization of the church. The headship of Christ was not a

principle of organization to be given casual assent and forgotten.

Rather, the reality of Christ's headship was to be realized in an

organization that was not to "come from the members," was not to

originate with or be managed by human components in the church, but

was to come "from the Head." "All reorganization" was to "come from

Christ himself, through the Spirit of God."*

2

^In one of his discourses, Waggoner asked the question, "How

am I going to get that organization which the Lord wants me to have?
answered, "Be born again." For Waggoner, as for Jones, corporate
organization was always to be merged with personal regeneration.
Prescott supported Jones and Waggoner by appealing for the conference
to follow "God's method of organization"; the method of organization
that they had advocated (GC Bulletin. 1897, 157, 163-67, 236, 248).

2A. T. Jones, Church Organization: Sermon by Elder A^TL

¿fines (Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald, 1901), 18, 19. Jones
concluded the sermon: "There is no danger whatever [of schism]--except
 232

Not only was Christ head of the body, but the head and the

body were considered as one. Christ was depicted as the church, and

the church as Christ. In a sermon at the General Conference session

in 1903, Jones preached a sermon to all the assembled delegates in

which he claimed that

the church is the body of Christ in the word [sic] . It is Christ

manifested in the word fsicl; it is Christ incarnate in the world,
and that church being his body, being himself manifested, to love
that church, and give myself for it is nothing less, and it can
not be anything more than to love him and give myself for him. .
. . The church, the church of Christ, is himself manifested. He
is this.-*-

Certainly the church was not merely the Seventh-day Adventist

denomination. Since membership in the church was defined not by a

creed but by relationship to Christ, and since by its very nature the

church was Christ incarnate in the world, it was not possible for any

human organization to draw boundaries around the church and enclose

some and exclude others. The only qualification for membership was an

existential relationship with Jesus Christ, and only Christ himself

was qualified to assess the nature of his relationship with each

individual. The church, therefore, was to be found even "among the

nations of the heathen," and "there in oppression and in slavery, in

bondage," the nations could find the truth through such a church.*
2

among those who 'hold not the head'" (ibid., 21). A similar
perspective to that of Jones and Waggoner is presented in Lawrence 0.
Richards and Clyde Hoeldtke, A Theology of Church Leadership (Grand
Rapids, Zondervan, 1980).

^Sten 1903, "Sermon of Elder A. T. Jones, March 29, 1903," RG

0, GCAr, 22-23.

2Ibid., 32. Thorough study needs to be given to the

comparisons and contrasts between the ecclesiological views of Jones
and Waggoner and ecclesiological emphases in the Holiness and
 233

Reference has already been made to the parallel

ecclesiological concepts of Waggoner and Jones during the 1890s. When

at the 1903 General Conference session an attempt was made to adopt a

constitution which reverted to electing a president as the leading

officer of the General Conference, three members of the Committee on

Plans and Constitution dissented from the majority report and

submitted to the floor of the session a minority report. The three

Pentecostal movements of the 1880s-1910s. Although in-depth study of

those issues lies outside the purposes of this dissertation, a
preliminary investigation has revealed some striking parallels between
the soteriological and ecclesiological views of Jones and Waggoner and
some of their contemporaries within those movements. For example,
Arthur T. Pierson in his small commentary on the Keswick conventions
(which began in 1875), summarized "the Keswick method." The "method"
comprised one essential tenet: the Holy Spirit was "practically
regarded as the presiding officer and chief administrator in all truly
holy assemblies." He was the "true Archbishop, the Supreme Teacher,
the Divine Guide and Governor" (A. T. Pierson, The Keswick Movement
[New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1903], 121). From that "fundamental
position," Pierson listed "several others": (1) "habitual waiting on
God in prayer," (2) "avoidance of man-worship," (3) "independence of
worldly attractions and patronage," (4) "apostolic simplicity of
worship, witness, and fellowship," and (5) "all believers . . . held
to be one in Christ Jesus" (ibid., 121-23). The parallels between
these positions which were characteristic of the Keswick movement and
the espoused positions of Jones and Waggoner (who advocated divine
headship in church organization) are obvious. One difference,
however, was that whereas the Holiness movement and the Pentecostal
movement in particular were more pneumatocentric, Jones and Waggoner
remained more christocentric through 1903. It is probably true to
say, however, that they talked of the role of the Holy Spirit in the
life of the believer and the church more than those who were allied
with Daniells. For Daniells, the function of the Holy Spirit was
usually related to the task of the church. For a discussion of
christocentrism versus pneumatocentrism, see Donald W. Dayton,
Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury
Press, 1987), 43-44, 51-52. Other works which should be consulted in
comparing and contrasting the ecclesiological views of Jones and some
°f his contemporaries outside the Seventh-day Adventist Church
include, Melvin E. Dieter, The Holiness Revival of the Nineteenth

°ore, Religious Outsiders and the Making of Americans (New York:

xford University Press, 1986); and W. J. Hollenweger, The
--gntecostals (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972).
 234

dissenting members were E. J. Waggoner, D. J. Paulson, and Percy T.

Magan.^

Waggoner assumed the role of spokesman for the group. He

explained that they objected to the constitution as proposed by the

majority report because it was "fundamentally and diametrically

opposed to the principles of organization as set forth in the Bible."

He added that "both the form and the spirit" of the proposed

organization were wrong. To substantiate his case, Waggoner rehearsed

many of the ecclesiological positions that, with Jones, he had

O
developed over the fifteen years since 1888.

First, he asserted that the local church was to be the basic

unit and standard of organization. According to Waggoner, this was

the biblical model.^ Second, Bible organization was "opposed to the

^The minority report claimed, in part, that the proposed

constitution of 1903 was "so subversive of the principles of
organization" given in 1897 and 1901 that those who supported the
report could not possibly subscribe to it. In their opinion, it
reversed the "reformatory steps" then taken before they had been given
an "adequate trial." Sten 1903, "Report of the Minority of the
Committee on Plans and Constitution," 9 April 1903, 11:00 A.M., RG 0,
GCAr, 17.

2Ibid., 21-34.

^Ibid., 22. E. J. Waggoner's father, J. H. Waggoner, had

written a series of articles on the subject of the church in RH in
1885. Curiously, in the eighth article in the series he had defined
the structure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as "congregational."
He began that particular article: "The system of church government
among Seventh-day Adventists, as among Baptists, is the
congregational." In the same article he described the conference
organization which was also a part of the structure of the church.
However, the conference organization was perceived only as "the
balance-wheel, the check to prevent maladministration of discipline in
the churches" (J. H. Waggoner, "The Church.--No. 8," RH, 9 June 1885,
360-61). It appears that J. H. Waggoner, like his son after him, saw
the local congregation as the basic organizational unit of the church.
That this article, which suggests that the organizational structure of
 235

exaltation of any person over others." He contended that "in the

economy of God," all were to be kings and nobody ruled over any other.

Presumably he was working from the reformation principle of the

priesthood of believers. This was another variation on the headship-

of-Christ rationale for not electing a president. The reason for not

having a titular president was not only the headship of Christ, but

the equality of all. He explained,

Nobody is going to rule. 1 am a king; but I recognize that other

man as king, and I will submit to his authority, under God, and
the other men will recognize the other one's authority, under God,
when he stands under relationship to God; and I will recognize the
whole of them, and they, in turn, me; and there is mutual
reigning, absolute sovereignty, on the part of each individual,
and, above all, submission on the part of each to one another and
to the whole.^

Third, Waggoner argued that although the need for leadership

was recognized in the New Testament, authority to lead was derived

from the mystical relationship between the individual and God. It was

not to come from the position to which that person may be elected.^

Waggoner failed to recognize, however, that leadership authority and

mystical relationship fall into two different categories. The

theological concept of the headship of Christ does not negate the

sociological need for leadership. Leadership is a sociological

concept quite apart from its theological ramifications. The Bible

recognizes the need for leadership because in human society there must

the denomination was congregational, was printed in the RH is

indicative of the lack of ecclesiological discussion and clear
structural definition that was characteristic of the church at that
time.

1Sten 1903, 9 April 1903, 11:00 A.M., RG 0, GCAr, 29-30.

^Ibid., 28.
 236

be leaders. Leadership is not only a theological category, just as

the concept of mystical relationship is not only a sociological

category. The mystical relationship between the believer and Christ

is theologically grounded. Jones and Waggoner failed to realize that

their theological data could not define everything in regards to the

need for human leadership in the church and the manner in which that

leadership should be exercised.

For Waggoner, abrogating the need for leadership was a mark of

maturity. He stated to the assembled delegates at the 1903 General

Conference session that he was sure that the time would come when such

things would "be left aside as the toys of childhood." To assume that

human leadership in the church would always be necessary was, for him,

a mark of disbelief in the power of the Holy Spirit to keep the church

unified. ^

Just before concluding his remarks and appealing to the

delegates to reject the proposed constitutional changes, Waggoner

admitted that although the constitution adopted in 1901 had been

"better than anything" they had ever had and "a step in the right

direction," his approval of it was based on the fact that "it was

milder" and "had fewer provisions" than any other constitution that

the church had adopted since it was organized. His support was

certainly not unqualified, however. He had not actually voted for it

at all, nor had he "voted for any constitution for the last ten

years." He saw it as a step in the "right direction" but still so far

from expressing the principles he was espousing that he could not cast

1Ibid., 27-28.
 237

a vote for it. That being the case, he could not possibly revoke the

principles which he held and had "been teaching for many years," by

recommending to the delegates at the 1903 session a constitution that

he perceived as a direct reversal of the gains that had been made when

the 1901 constitution had been adopted.^

By 1903 Jones, Waggoner, and a significant group of others who

shared their soteriological, eschatological, and ecclesiological

biases were comparing the developing organizational form of the

denomination with the institutional and hierarchical characteristics

of the papacy. In that year, Jones published a pamphlet in which he

denounced the "religious despotism" of the papal system. He pointedly

titled the short work One Man Power.^

Its implications were not lost on A. G. Daniells. Writing to

G. I. Butler some months after the 1903 session of the General

Conference, Daniells was perplexed. He said:

^Ibid., 27, 31. At the 1903 General Conference session, W. W.

Prescott was no longer an ally of Jones and Waggoner. He had changed
his position soon after the 1901 General Conference session and had
become supportive of the position held by Daniells. It had been
Prescott who, at the 1897 General Conference session, had first drawn
the attention of the delegates to the recently published statement of
Ellen White that it was not wise to choose one man as president of the
General Conference. GC Bulletin. 1897, 58.

^A. T. Jones, One Man Power (Oakland, Calif.: Pacific Press,

[1903]), 20. The final paragraph read: "And so the meaning of the
things that are occurrent today, and the outcome of the combines that
are prevalent everywhere, and in all things, is the religious
despotism of a one-man power of the Papacy restored to a short-lived
supremacy, and then hurled down to eternal destruction and perdition.
While for those who, with the other heroes of the ages, in their
Individual integrity, refuse all that, and stand in their individual
integrity with God in Jesus Christ, the sure outcome is the rising to
he with God in everlasting victory and eternal glory. For 'those who
are on his side . . . will share his victory.' Who is on the Lord's
side?" (ibid., 21).
 238

I am utterly astonished at the position Dr. Waggoner is taking in

this matter [organization]. Both he and Elder Jones seem to think
that we are establishing the papacy in our midst, but I can not
see this at all.^

In 1909, reflecting on the situation in 1901 and 1903, Jones

wrote an appeal to the General Conference in session. He wrote:

I repeat: In 1901 the denomination was brought to the very

threshold of the Christian and New Testament order. But instead
of going on through the open door, fully into evangelical
Christianity, in 1902 that whole order was reversed. In 1903 this
reversal was confirmed in General Conference. And now, as
officially written and published, the denomination is openly and
positively committed professedly to the Mosaic order but in fact
to the first steps of the papal order.^

Jones's ecclesiology had been molded by the same processes and

presuppositions that gave birth to his emphasis on righteousness by

faith. Together with Waggoner he had endeavored to move the Seventh-

day Adventist Church toward a theological understanding of the nature

1A. G. Daniells to G. I. Butler, 3 July 1903, RG 11, LB 30,

GCAr. Daniells's lack of understanding of the theological basis of
Jones and Waggoner's position was revealed in this letter to Butler.
Daniells did not agree with Jones and Waggoner, but clearly his
disagreement was not based on theological reasoning, but on the
pragmatic implications of their proposal, which, given his
administrative ability and aptitude, he perceived as destructive to
the goals and purposes of the church. He wrote to Butler: "These new
ideas regarding church discipline, organization, etc., are a
revelation to me. For fourteen years I labored in Australia in
blissful ignorance of these new notions. There I worked with Brother
and Sister White, all those years, carefully and patiently building up
a systematic, thoroughly organized movement. We never met with the
charges of papacy, kingship, bossism, or anything of the kind. To my
mind there is an element of anarchy, disorganization, and chaos in
this opposition to what I should call organization. . . . Therefore,
notwithstanding their protestations, I can not help feeling that they
are opposed to organization. They may not think so, but that is what
it amounts to" (ibid.)

^A. T. Jones, An Appeal. 49. This appeal was read at the

General Conference session in response to a written request by Jones
to present his case before the session delegates. Shortly afterwards,
Jones's membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church was revoked.
 239

of the church which was more ontological than functional. Their

efforts should be appreciated over against an almost complete

disregard for ecclesiological thinking by other leaders of the church.

Because his ecclesiology was based on his soteriology,

however, Jones gave insufficient attention to the corporate nature of

the church, its universal nature, and its sociological dimensions.

After 1901, and especially after 1903, most who defended the

reorganized structure of the church did so on the basis of an appeal

to New Testament references to the church universal, and gave almost

no attention to New Testament references to the church local. Jones

and his associates, on the other hand, largely neglected even New

Testament references to the church universal and chose to concentrate

their attention on the church local.

Their greatest omission, however, was the result of their

failure to recognize that the church is not wholly, nor only, a

theological entity. They did not address the church as a sociological

entity. At the 1897 General Conference session, Waggoner had made it

clear that they did not consider the church to be anything but a

divine institution. He bluntly stated that "the Church of Christ is

not a human o r g a n i z a t i o n . J o n e s and he did not take into account

the reality that the church is made up of human beings and that it

does display those sociological and organizational characteristics

common to all human endeavor.

They also failed to take into consideration the impact of sin

°n the church and its structures. Jones and Waggoner were convinced

^.C. Bulletin. 1897, 236.

 240

that those who were totally surrendered to Christ and, therefore,

under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, would not sin. The

church, in their view, comprised people who were living without sin.

Consideration of the impact of sin on structures was irrelevant.

Regardless of the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the

church, however, a human organization needs a system of checks and

balances. Idealistic organizational forms which deny the presence and

impact of sin are inappropriate, even for the church. Structures

should take into account the ecclesiological and sociological

dimensions that are integral to the church. But they are appropriate

only if they are able to accommodate the impact that the fallen nature

of man and freedom of choice has upon all social institutions. The

soteriological and anthropological positions of Jones and his

associates made their acceptance of such a perspective impossible.

The Theological Foundations for Reorganization as

Perceived bv A. G, Daniells and His Allies;
The Eschatological-Missiological Model

While Jones and his associates started their theological

reasoning with righteousness by faith, Daniells and his associates

began with the certainty and imminence of the return of Jesus Christ.

On that eschatological foundation Daniells and those who saw the

situation as he did built their commitment to global missionary

endeavor. The imminence of the second coming of Christ determined the

urgency of the mission. Soteriology was important to them, especially

since they were aware of the initiatives that had been shown by Jones

and Waggoner in 1888. But in contrast to Jones and Waggoner,

soteriology was not the starting point of their theological reasoning.

 241

Ecclesiology was for those allied with Daniells more a

function of their eschatological and missiological perceptions. The

church existed because it had been commissioned to perform a specific

task. That task was missionary in nature. The missionary nature of

the church was the theological perspective that informed the need for,

and shape of, the structures of the church. Denominational

organization was modelled according to the contingencies of the task.

The task itself was contingent on the eschatological hope of those who

had accepted Christ. Writing to W. C. White in 1903, Daniells stated

that "the vital object for which Seventh-day Adventists have been

raised up is to prepare the world for the Coming Christ; the chief

means for doing this work is the preaching of the present truth, or

the third angel's message of Rev. 14:6-12."*-

Because the need for organization arose from a perception of

eschatological and missiological necessity, there was no doubt among

those who held this view that the structure which they erected was

biblically based. They understood that the New Testament affirmed

that Christ was returning and that the transmission of the gospel to

the world was the primary precondition for his return. With a

consciousness of divine providence, they understood that Seventh-day

Adventists had been specifically chosen within a precise time

reference in order to herald the "everlasting gospel" to all the

*A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, 17 May 1903, Incoming Files,

EGWO-DC.
 242

world. ■*- Their's was a conviction born of commitment to the necessity

of a biblical foundation for their faith and practice, including their

organizational practice. Daniells reflected the conviction of the

denomination when, in 1906, he confidently declared that

The doctrines we hold not only created our denomination, but

our denominational aim, purpose, or policy, as well. This
denominational purpose or policy is formed by our view of what the
Bible teaches. It is peculiar to our denomination. It differs
from the policies of other denominations and organizations as
widely as our doctrinal views differ from theirs.^ (Emphasis
supplied.)

Some years later, W. A. Spicer was even more emphatic than

Daniells. Challenging the church to take up the "world-wide

proclamation of the everlasting gospel and the finishing of the work,"

he contended that "every principle in the organization of our work . .

. is found in the Word of God." Clarence Crisler who was the private

secretary of Ellen White from 1901 until 1915, began the foreword to a

pamphlet that he wrote the year before her death by categorically

stating that "the underlying principles of the organization of the

Seventh-day Adventist denomination . . . may be traced in the records

of the New Testament." Both Spicer and Crisler were careful to say

that it was "principles" and not forms that were to be found in the

New Testament.-^*
4
1

^Some of the passages of Scripture that they used to

substantiate their position of urgency were: 1 Thess 4:16-18; John
14:1-3; Act 1:7-9; Matt 24:14; 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Rev 14:6-14.

^A. G. Daniells, "A Statement Concerning Our Present

Situation--No. 3," RH, 22 February 1906, 6.

■Hi. A. Spicer, "Divine Warnings against Disorganization," RH

14 September 1916, 4; C. C. Crisler, The Value of Organization. 3.
See also S. N. Haskell, "Organization--No. 18," RH, 16 May 1907, 4;
A. G. Daniells, "Organization as Developed by Our Pioneers," RH, 21
 243

Since the time of Butler the biblical scholars of the church

had been persons other than those in leading administrative positions.

The influence of the theologians had been determined by their

preaching and writing. With the demise of Jones and Waggoner and the

shift of Prescott into a leading administrative position, the General

Conference leaders, particularly Daniells, assumed the role of

theological arbitrators. Since their selection to administrative

office was more likely to have been made because of their

administrative talent rather than their theological acumen, however,

it was to be expected that their organizational decisions would be

™ade more on the basis of administrative facility than comprehensive

theological reasoning.

Long before, W. C. White had strongly counseled against the

dangers of just such a situation. Writing to A. 0. Tait in 1895 he

said:

When these few men in responsible positions [the officers of the

International Temperance Society] come to feel as certain ones did
in '87 to '90 that they are personally responsible for the
theology of the denomination, and for the working our [sic] of
plans, financial and otherwise, then there comes in a restricting
of the work, which is anything but healthful. I tell you frankly
I am afraid of it."^

February 1918, 5; and J. L. McElhany, "Principles of Conference

Administration," Ministry. March 1938, 5. The assertion that
Principles" of organization were derived from the Word of God is
Very different from the claim that the "four-level structure . . .
came to the church from Scripture, Ellen White counsels, and divine
Providence" (Bert B. Beach, "Reflections on the Present Denominational
Church Structure," [paper prepared for the Commission on the Role and
Function of Denominational Organizations, 1985, RG 500, Monographs
Series, GCAr], 17-18, emphasis supplied).

^■W. C. White to A. 0, Tait, 2 September 1895, LB 8, EGW0-DC.

Three years earlier, White had written to 0. A. Olsen that "It seems
to me that it is not good for our work when the business men undertake
 244

By 1903, the two men who had been the most influential

theologians of the denomination during the 1890s had assumed an

ecclesiological stance which was unacceptable to the administrative

officers of the church. The church was justified in rejecting the

organizational contentions of Jones and Waggoner. The problem was

that there were few theological alternatives. So absorbed were the

leaders of the church in refuting the organizational implications of

Jones and Waggoner's position that they failed to recognize the value

of much of what was being said. As a result they constructed a system

which did not take into account explicit theological principles.

Those principles which were later labelled "theological" were not

derived by theological reasoning. They were discovered by use of the

same methodology that Seventh-day Adventists had always used with a

great deal of success in their doctrinal exposition--the method of

proof-texting.

Eschatology and Mission

Mission: Eschatology’s Requirement

Reorganization was undertaken in the first place not because

the end was coming, but because there was a "work" to do before the

to shape the opinions of our people and direct or hinder the progress
of the cause in matters of theology. . . . And is there not also some
impropriety in our allowing the theologians who have never borne a
large proportion of the burden to organize, build up, and carry
forward successfully the business interests of the denomination, to
step in and take a very active part in tearing down that which has
been built up at a great cost by those who have made these features of
the work a life-long study" (W. C. White to 0. A. Olsen, 14 October
1892, RG 9, W. C. White Folder 4, GCAr.)
 245

end could come.^ Reorganization, or for that matter organization,

could not be substantiated on the basis of the return of Christ alone.

Those who insisted that organizational form be determined only by the

imminence of the return of Christ had, in the history of Adventism,

denied the necessity of any form of organization at all. It was the

mission policy of the church which in 1905 was described as "the most

important feature of our denominational policy," and it was the

urgency associated with that mission that was more the precipitating

factor in reorganization than the imminence of the Christ's return.^

Certainly expectation of the return of Christ had always been

a cardinal feature of the Seventh-day Adventist belief system. During

the 1860s and 1870s, however, when the concept of world mission was

emerging from the Adventist sub-consciousness, the need to fulfill the

mission of the church was slotted in between the concept of the church

and the imminence of Christ's return. The accomplishment of the

gospel commission became pre-requisite to the return of Christ.

Therefore, the accomplishment of that task rather than the second

coming itself became the primary focus of attention for the church.

That emphasis gained strength during the 1890s and on into the

twentieth century. In his opening address at the 1901 General

Conference session, George Irwin, whose term as General Conference

President was to finish at that session, insisted that "the one great

^In 1906, when refuting charges made by A. T. Jones, it had

been affirmed that reorganization "was to be effected which would more
fully take in the full scope of the work to be accomplished throughout
the world" (General Conference Committee, Statement. 16).
o
A. G. Daniells, "The President's Address: A Review and an
Outlook--Suggestions for Conference Action," RH, 11 May 1905, 8.
 246

object" in all the deliberations and plans proposed for adoption was

"the rapid dissemination of the third angel's message."1 Daniells,

who was to take over as General Conference president, proclaimed that

"the message of the third angel is to be given to the entire world."

It was not to be confined to a particular country, nation, or group of

people, but was "for the whole world alike. . . . The end [was] being

delayed by his [God's] own people [and] the only way to hasten that

end and bring it speedily [was] for his people to do their duty."*
2

The urgency of the situation had also been pointed out by

Ellen White. For some time she had been insisting that the end could

already have come if the church had done "her appointed work." In an

editorial written only six months after the 1901 General Conference

session, Uriah Smith collated a number of her references to the duty

of the church with reference to the urgency of the situation. Typical

of those which Smith selected was: "Had the Church of Christ done her

appointed work as the Lord ordained, the whole world would before this

have been warned, and the Lord Jesus would have come to our earth in

power and great glory." Smith concluded:

It is our own fault that we are not there [in the delights of the
immortal state]. We are living on borrowed time, time borrowed
from that during which we ought to have been in the kingdom. Let
none sink down in discouragement with the thought that the Lord
has delayed His work and His coming. It is not here now, only
because we have not hastened it. It ought to make any one ashamed
to be complaining that the Lord delays His coming, when he thinks

^ C Bulletin. 1901, 20, 47.

2Sten 1901, 19 April 1901, RG 0, GCAr, 40a, 51.

 247

that he ought to be In the kingdom here and now.1

While attending the European Union Conference session in 1902,

Daniells said:

I sometimes hear people give an exhortation after this

fashion: they say, 'The Lord is soon coming; we have consequently
a very short time in which to work, therefore we must be greatly
in earnest.' Now I think that is a wrong statement of the matter
altogether. If I understand it, the fact is this: we ought to be
terribly in earnest in this work, that the message may speedily be
given to all the world, that Jesus may soon come. When we get the
fact burned into our hearts that Jesus cannot come until the world
is warned with the message for this time, then, dear friends, we
shall be earnest that the Gospel may be given, that Jesus may
come.^

None were more conscious of the part they were playing in the

divine scheme of things than those who went to the ends of the earth

to spread the gospel as missionaries. Writing just before he left to

pioneer the Seventh-day Adventist cause in Australia, S. N. Haskell

wrote that "the most conclusive evidence that we can have that we are

nearing the close of probation and the coming of the Lord is the fact

that the warning of this event is going to the whole world.

The "end" was still discussed and hoped for by Seventh-day

Adventists. But more and more, the end was regarded as remote--more

remote at least than the evangelization of the world which was

becoming the primary objective of the church and its members. In 1894

Ellen White stated that the church "had been organized on earth for

^-Ellen G. White, Desire of Ages (Oakland, Calif.: Pacific

Press, 1898), 633-34; [Uriah Smith], "Living on Borrowed Time," RH, 1
October 1901, 636.
O
^"Sermon by A. G. Daniells at the Opening of the Conference,"
¿ulletln of the European Union Conference Held in London. May 15-25.
HoiTT
•^S. N. Haskell, "Australia," RH, 6 January 1885, 12.
 248

missionary purposes" (emphasis supplied), and it was Christ's

requirement that his followers make "his work the first and highest

consideration.

Since organization and the form it took was not understood to

have a direct relationship to the end of the world, but was mediated

by the task, it is not surprising that expectancy began to be

expressed, not only in terms of the coming of Christ, but in terms of

the growth of the church. Already in 1891, Seventh-day Adventists

were beginning to assess their viability as a movement and

substantiate their hope, by referring to statistics which indicated

satisfactory growth rates. In that year Uriah Smith, editor of the

Review and Herald, pointed out that the "visible growth of the cause,

and the marked blessing of God upon the labors of his people, have

helped the church to bear what otherwise would have been a severe

trial; namely the delay in the accomplishment of the blessed hope for

which the church has so long been waiting for."^ Growth was a

tangible, measurable gauge of the success of the church, and

reorganization was to be the means of facilitating that growth.

Nothing could be permitted to come between the growth of the church

and the fulfillment of the mission.

"This Generation"

Seventh-day Adventists had been strongly committed to their

conviction that the coming of Christ was to occur in "this

^Ellen G. White, "Missionary Enterprise the Object of Christ's

Church," RH, 30 October 1894, 673.

^[Uriah Smith], "Origin and History," RH. 27 January 1891, 57.

 249

generation." At the end of the 1880s many articles appeared in the

church press which took up that theme. Those articles emphasized the

conviction that Christ was to return before all those who had

experienced the events of 1844 passed to their rest. They based their

expectation on Christ's words in Matt 24:34. In an editorial written

in 1891, Uriah Smith explained the rationale for the position. He

concluded that article by affirming:

The generation living in 1844, when the great Advent

proclamation was set before the world in such power, was the first
generation that had these things presented to them in this manner.
Many of them are still living, and all will not have passed off
the stage of action, before the angels are sent to gather the
elect into the everlasting kingdom.^ (Emphasis supplied.)

Despite an effort at the 1903 General Conference session to

revive commitment to the necessity of Christ's return in "this

generation," as an impetus for mission, a shifting understanding of

the meaning of the term was evident.^ In another editorial written by

■'■[Uriah Smith], "This Generation," RH, 17 November 1891, 712.

See also [idem], "This Generation," RH, 22 March 1887, 182; M. E.
Steward, "This Generation," RH, 30 August 1887, 548-49; and George B.
Thompson, "This Generation," RH, 4 September 1888, 564.
O
The crisis over organizational issues at the 1903 General
Conference session called forth a strongly eschatological emphasis in
the preaching at that session and in the months that followed.
Immediately before the session convened, Daniells circulated a letter
to administrators and delegates which contained a strongly worded
exhortation to "renounce everything of a worldly character, and
everything in our denominational machinery and methods that does not
direct to this end [giving this message to all the world] (see A. G.
Daniells to A. T. Robinson, 6 March 1903, RG 11, LB 30, GCAr). The
first sermon of the session delivered by W. W. Prescott set the
keynote of the session--the second coming of Christ. In that sermon
Prescott told the delegates that they were not to plan longer than
this generation" and endeavored to explain the delay of the parousia
to that point (GC Bulletin. 1903, 220; Sten 1903, "Sermon by W. W.
Prescott, Friday Evening, March 27, 1903, at 7.30," RG 0, GCAr). In
his second sermon the next day, Prescott used the phrase "this
generation" twenty-one times. Other speakers at the session took up
 250

Uriah Smith, but only a few months before his own death, he did not

focus his attention on the generation which had witnessed the events

of 1844, but on the "generation which i£ crucifying this threefold

message now." That was the generation which would "live to see the

end of the w o r l d . A t that stage Smith's ideas may not have been

widely publicized. Certainly the former meaning of the phrase

continued to be used in preaching, but it was apparent that the

urgency of that interpretation was beginning to fade. Whether this

was only the result of the realization that the pioneers were in fact

passing from the scene, or whether preoccupation with organizational

reconstruction had negatively impacted the eschatological fervor of

the denomination is not possible to determine. Administrators were

becoming concerned that the sense of urgency and imminent expectation

was being lost. Daniells lamented that

many of our dear, loyal, self-sacrificing people have begun to

lose confidence in this thing [being translated without seeing

Prescott's theme. George B. Thompson stated unequivocally that some

who had seen the events of 1844 would still be alive when Christ
returned (Sten 1903, "Evening Talk, Elder G. B. Thompson, Friday
Evening, 7:30 o'clock, April 3, 1903," RG 0, GCAr). G. A. Irwin spoke
of "the gray-headed men of seventy and upwards" who were "rapidly
dropping out of our ranks, one by one." He was concerned that if the
work was to be finished "in the little time allotted . . . we must
make haste" (Sten 1903, "Sermon by Elder G. A. Irwin, S.D.A. Church
Oakland, Calif., March 28, 1903, 3:00 P.M.," RG 0, GCAr, 10a). Even
so, some were not so sure that the prospect of preaching the gospel to
the world in "this generation" as interpreted by these preachers at
that time was a feasible proposition. E. J. Waggoner, commenting on
the situation in Great Britain, said that there was one thing of which
he was certain: unless funds and manpower were forthcoming, "it would
take an exceedingly long generation . . . to cover the whole
territory, . . . it would take a long while" (Sten 1903, 5 April 1903,
3.00 P.M., RG 0, GCAr, 44-45).

^[Uriah Smith], "In This Generation," RH, 23 September 1902,

3.
 251

death]. They are beginning to fear that they will have to die
without seeing that for which they have so fondly hoped, and which
they so much desire now to see.-*-

In an effort to try to revive flagging expectations, an

editorial was written in 1904, presumably by W. W. Prescott, in which

he admitted that the "hope of the immediate coming of the Lord . . .

had become almost a forlorn hope with many," but that it was being

revived by the "encouraging response to the rallying call for means

and messengers to carry the threefold message quickly." Prescott went

on to explain that upheavals taking place in the Seventh-day Adventist

Church, and the insidious liberalism that was inundating other

denominations were evidences that the "loud cry" was still being

heard. He reassured his readers: "We have known for years that we

were in the time of the loud cry of this message, and we have been

sorely grieved because of the delay, but recently we have been

comforted with the assurance that 'there shall be delay no longer.'

The time has fully come for this promise to be fulfilled."'*

A year later he was admitting that the advent had apparently

heen delayed again.3 Inevitably, after numerous cycles of increased

expectancy, then disappointment, the earlier perspective on "this

^A. G. Daniells to G. C. Tenney, 23 February 1903, RG 11, LB

30, GCAr.

"*[W. W. Prescott], "Significant Changes," RH, 22 December

1904, 3-4.

^ln an editorial written in 1905, Prescott admitted that there

had indeed been delay again. He said: "More than four years have
passed since the prophetic declaration that 'there shall be delay no
longer' was taken by this people as the basis of renewed hope and
courage, . . . There has been further apparent delay" ([W. W.
Prescott], "No More Delay," RH, 21 December 1905, 3).
 252

generation" could not be sustained. In 1905 the concept of the

warning being given to the presently living generation was being

advanced as a subtle variation on the former emphasis on the return of

Christ in the generation of those who had been alive in 1844.1

Adventists had likely been influenced and motivated by the watchword

of the Student Volunteer Movement.

By 1911 that emphasis was no longer so subtle. The generation

of 1911 was the generation to be warned and the generation to "witness

the appearing of Christ in the clouds of h e a v e n . I n 1930 Arthur

Daniells wrote an article in which he admitted that the expectation of

the return of Christ "in this generation" had not occurred in the

manner or at the time that the pioneers had expected. However, he

explained that the problem was not with the word of God but with the

church. Daniells understood the prophecy in terms of conditionality.

Apparently, Ellen White's statements had also been conditional.

Whether or not the prophecy was conditional or otherwise was not so

much the concern, however. For him the most important implication

remained: "the possibility that God's people possess the power either

to hasten or to delay any of God's purposes or p l a n s . B y 1901,

Daniells was convinced that reorganization was needed in order that

1[W. W. Prescott], "The Warning to This Generation," RH, 16

February 1905, 3. Examples of articles which were still endeavoring
to keep alive the former hope in 1905 were Otey James, "One of ’This
Generation,'" RH, 20 July 1905, 18; and L. A. Smith, "The End of 'This
Generation,"' RH, 2 November 1905, 5.

^F. M. Wilcox, "The Reason for Our Existence as a

Denomination," RH, 21 September 1911, 6-7.

^A. G. Daniells, "Is Christ's Coming Being Delayed? If So,

Why?" Ministry. November 1930, 5-6, 30.
 253

God’s purposes and plans should not be unduly delayed.

Ecclesiology

Gerard Damsteegt has pointed out that by 1874 the Seventh-day

Adventist Church had developed an ecclesiological self-understanding

which was expressed in terms of eschatological and typological motifs

In actual fact, so strongly eschatological was the Seventh-day

Adventist orientation in theology, that even those motifs that

Damsteegt classified as typological were eschatologically applied.

Eschatology informed all other aspects of biblical interpretation for

the Adventists. As the mission consciousness of the church developed

it was defined by the prospect of the imminent eschaton.^ The church

did not need to do too much theological reflection about itself.

Christ was coming, there was no time for introversion. The prospect

of warning the world was far more inspiring than ecclesiological

reflection.

It was the function of the church which gave its existence

legitimacy. The Seventh-day Adventist commitment to task had arisen

from a sense of divine providence. Their doctrine of providence did

not arise from a Calvinistic predisposition in theology, however. It

arose from a historicist interpretation of prophecy. Their

interpretation of prophecy located the denomination in an historical

continuum over which divine providence had control. Determinism

functioned, not in the soteriological dimension as in Calvinism, but

^Damsteegt points out that the idea of the church being a

missionary society was first ventured among Seventh-day Adventists in
the year that the General Conference was organized--1863 (Damsteegt,
Foundations of Seventh-dav Adventist Mission. 256).
 254

in the cosmic dimension. Theodicy was ultimately the object of

history. They understood their role in that theodicy as the

evangelization of the world in preparation for the second coming of

Christ. That "assignment" defined not only the church's modus

operandi but also its raison d'etre. For Seventh-day Adventists in

the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the church was mission.

Ecclesiologlcal Vacuum

Their functional view of the nature of the church explains why

Seventh-day Adventists published so few articles on the subject of

ecclesiology during the 1890s, but many which promoted mission. In

the main, articles which addressed ecclesial concerns discussed such

matters as church order and government, church discipline, the duties

of church officers, and the responsibilities of church membership

rather than theological issues relating to the nature and being of the

church. Nowhere, other than in the sermons and articles of A. T.

Jones, E. J. Waggoner, and W. W. Prescott were there attempts made to

give a formal theological basis for ecclesiology. If any biblical

reference was made, it was usually a passing reference to order being

the rule of God's government or the rule in nature, or maybe even a

^In the years 1850-59, fourteen articles were written in the

RH on subjects immediately related to church order and government;
1860-69, forty-two articles were written; 1870-79, thirty-three
articles; 1880-89, thirty-four articles; 1890-99, only six articles.
It is difficult to know just why there were so few articles on the
question of church order and government in the 1890s. Perhaps it was
the realization that there were serious problems with the system of
organization, and nobody was able to suggest improvement which could
solve the dilemma. On the other hand, it may be that many suggestions
for structural modification were being made, but they were being
suppressed by an editorial policy which considered them counter
productive to the unity and stability of the organization.
 255

characteristic of the early church. Very little elaboration was

attempted. The church was taken for granted. It was assumed. It was

visible, defined, not by an ontological ecclesiology but by a task

which had to be accomplished and a set of doctrines which were

determinative of orthodoxy.

In 1885, J. H. Waggoner wrote the first extended series of

articles on the subject of the church to be published in a Seventh-day

Adventist journal. No other major series of articles which

represented the accepted church attitude on the subject was produced

for another fifteen years--right through the time when the church was

enduring serious organizational trauma. However, even Waggoner's

series dealt only incidentally with ecclesiology. He was much more

concerned with matters of discipline, qualification of church

officers, incorporation of members, the sacraments of the church, and

church standards of behavior. In the first article brief mention was

made of the church as ekklesia. and in the third article there was a

discussion of ordination; but apart from those allusions, the rest of

the discussion was concerned with matters of order which were not

substantiated by formal theological rationale.! That such was the

^•J. H. Waggoner, "The Church," 17-part series in RH, 21 April

1885, 249; 28 April 1885, 264-65; 5 May 1885, 280-81; 12 May 1885,
297-98; 19 May 1885, 313-14; 26 May 1885, 329; 2 June 1885, 345-46; 9
June 1885, 360-61; 16 June 1885, 376-77; 23 June 1885, 392-93; 14 July
1885, 440; 28 July 1885, 470-71; 4 August 1885, 488-89; 18 August
1885, 520-21; 25 August 1885, 537-38; 1 September 1885, 552-53; 8
September 1885, 568-69. In the second article Waggoner made
reference to the covenant of membership that all persons who were
accepted into the fellowship of the Seventh-day Adventist Church were
required to sign. It was worded: "We, the undersigned, hereby
associate ourselves together as a church, taking the name Seventh-day
Adventists, and covenanting to keep the commandments of God and the
faith of Jesus" (Waggoner, 28 April 1885, 265). In the eighth article
 256

case is especially surprising in view of Waggoner's standing in the

church as one of its leading theologians. If he, of all people, did

not think it necessary to develop a Seventh-day Adventist ecclesiology

in a series of articles such as he wrote, it is improbable that any

other Seventh-day Adventist at that time would have considered the

task pressing.

In the next fifteen years there were only four individual

articles published which endeavored to develop an ecclesiological

theme. None of them, however, gave any more comprehensive or formal

eschatological-missiological basis for a doctrine of the church than

had Waggoner's pioneering series of articles.

Waggoner designated the organizational pattern in the Seventh-day

Adventist Church congregational (Waggoner, 9 June 1885, 360). The
local church was defined in terms of the doctrinal beliefs of the
members.

1r . F. Cottrell's article made brief mention of the church as

a building with Christ as the foundation. The burden of the article,
however, was that persons joining the church should be thoroughly
indoctrinated so that the "the laborer who brought them into the
church, hoping to see them shine as stars in his crown" would not
"'suffer loss' in seeing his work on the building come to naught" (R.
F. Cottrell, "The Church a Building," RH, 27 March 1888, 194). I. E.
Kimball's article did show some promise as an ecclesiological
treatise. He spoke of a church where all "'are members one of
another,' and 'members of his [Christ's] body, of his flesh, and of
his bones'. . . serving God with one consent, as one man." But the
possibility of an ecclesiological agenda was betrayed by his opening
and closing sentences: "There are but comparatively few who in any way
comprehend the requirements and responsibilities attaching to church
members. . . . Who will stand with the church of the 144,000 who are
found without fault before the throne of God?" (I. E. Kimball, ”'A
Glorious Church,'" RH, 9 April 1889, 228-29). U. Smith's editorial
was more concerned with order in the church than with the nature of
the church. He dealt exclusively with the local church.
Significantly, he proposed that the requirements of church
organization were not only to be modelled on the New Testament but
also that "expediency would readily suggest other necessary agents to
serve the church" (Uriah Smith, "Order in the Church," RH, 6 October
1896, 635; emphasis supplied). George Tenney came closer than any of
 257

In 1900 John N. Loughborough began a series of twenty-seven

articles for the Review and Herald on the subject of the church. That

series was still being published when the General Conference session

of 1901 convened.^- In that series, Loughborough made the first

attempt to examine systematically some of the images of the church in

the New Testament and relate them to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Despite the potential for development of a more ontological

ecclesiology, however, Loughborough used those images only as a means

to illustrate some facets of the functional life and order of the

o
church and the expected behavior of its members.*
3
1

the others to a discussion of the nature of the church. He explored

the theme of unity in diversity. Despite passing reference to the
nature of the church, his agenda, however, was not the church but the
individual in relationship to other individuals and the attitudes that
should be adopted to avoid prejudice. See George C. Tenney, Unity in
Diversity," RH, 27 October 1896, 686. Consistently, when the nature
the church was addressed, it was presented in terms of the beliefs,
behavior, or task of its members. The church was perceived as
functioning only as a facilitator of the member's participation in the
task of mission.

ij. N. Loughborough, "The Church," 27-part series in RH, 2

October 1900, 635-36; 9 October 1900, 651; 16 October 1900, 667-68; 23
October 1900, 682-83; 30 October 1900, 698-99; 6 November 1900, 715;
13 November 1900, 731; 20 November 1900, 747; 27 November 1900, 763; 4
December 1900, 779-80; 12 February 1901, 106; 19 February 1901, 122-
23; 4 April 1901, 234-35; 7 May 1901, 300-301; 14 May 1901, 314-15;
21 May 1901, 337-38; 28 May 1901, 346-47; 4 June 1901, 363-64; 11 June
3-901, 380-81; 18 June 1901, 397; 25 June 1901, 404-5; 2 July 1901,
419-20; 9 July 1901, 436-37; 16 July 1901, 452; 23 July 1901, 469-70;
30 July 1901, 484-85; 6 August 1901, 500-501. This series was
reprinted in 1907 as J . N. Loughborough, The Church, Its Organization,
Qtder arifi Discipline. To the original series of twenty-seven
articles, each forming a chapter in the book, were added the
Conference Address" of RH, 15 October 1861, .as chapter 24,
Reorganization," as chapter 25; "Numerical Representation and
Committees," as chapter 29; and "Answers to Questions," as chapter 30.

2For example, in the third article which discussed Paul s

image of the church as the body of Christ, there was no discussion of
the implications of the headship of Christ in the church, nor of the
 258

Descriptive images of the church were not entirely disregarded

in denominational publications. But those images that received

greater emphasis described the function of the church. Particularly

utilizing those images in the New Testament which drew on military

themes, Daniells and those allied with him often described the church

in terms of the army-fortress model.^ Daniells even referred to the

General Conference headquarters as "the seat of war," from time to

. o
t ime.

The fortress-army image of the church was particularly useful

at the 1903 General Conference session. Perhaps that was a reaction

to the war-like controversy in which those in the administrative ranks

meaning of the unity between Christ and his church. Rather, the
necessity for unity among believers and the sympathy of Christ toward
their sufferings was addressed. In the seventh article, which
treated the church as the light of the world, Loughborough discussed
the expected behavior of church members. While Loughborough's
articles were instructive discussions on the ethical obligations of
the Seventh-day Adventist Christian, they were not theological
analyses of the nature of the church. Loughborough's methodology did
not permit such an agenda. In all articles he merely quoted some
biblical references appropriate to the subject he had chosen and
appended a series of quotations from Ellen White. His own input was
minimal. See John N. Loughborough, "The Church: The Head and the
Body," RH, 16 October 1900, 667-68; idem, "The Church: The Light of
the World," RH, 13 November 1900, 731. Structure in the denomination
was more a function of delay of the advent than an expression of the
life of the church.

•^■Mustard has pointed out that the army-fortress model should

be traced back to the contention between James White and G. I. Butler
over leadership, during the 1870s. Given his perspective on
leadership, Butler preferred to consider the church an army. That
model implied strict discipline and order. White, on the other hand,
preferred the fortress msdel. The church was a place of protection
and consolation, but also a place of isolation. See Mustard, "James
White and Organization," 213-14.

2A. G. Daniells to I. J. Hankins, 18 June 1901, RG 11, LB 23,

GCAr; Sten 1901, 18 April 1901, RG 0, GCAr; GC Bulletin. 1901, 397.
 259

of the church were engaged. Most probably, however, the use of that

imagery accompanied the eschatological-missiological emphasis which at

that session became even more prominent than usual.P

Ecclesiastical Considerations

Published ecclesiological reflection may have been almost non­

existent in the 1890s, but articles which developed ecclesiastical

themes fared little better.^ Apart from Loughborough’s extended

series, it is difficult to find any other articles that were written

in the years immediately prior to 1901 that anticipated the arguments

that were later to be employed in order to justify the model of church

structure that was adopted in 1901-1903.^ Certainly the series of

articles written by Earnest Raymond that were strategically inserted

into Review and Herald immediately before the 1901 General Conference

^Women also were said to be "buckling on the armor"(GC

Bulletin 1903, 28). Spicer, Daniells, and Thompson used the image
extensively in their sermons at the session. Sten 1903, "Sermon by
Elder W. A. Spicer, S.D.A. Church, Oakland, Calif., Mch 31, 1903, 7:30
P.M.," RG 0, GCAr; Sten 1903, "Elder Daniells. 3.00 P.M. April 4.,"
RG 0, GCAr, 3; Sten 1903, "Evening Talk, Elder G. B. Thompson, Friday
evening, 7:30 o'clock, April 3, 1903," RG 0, GCAr. Those who were
most drawn to the eschatological-missiological basis for ecclesiology
and church structure were more likely to use army-fortress imagery in
reference to the church. That imagery was not nearly so common among
those who chose a christocentric foundation for their ecclesiology and
structure.

^The term "ecclesiological" denotes theological discussion of

the nature of the church. The term "ecclesiastical" denotes
discussion of the structures of the church which may or may not be
theologically defined.

^Reference is made below to some ecclesiological motifs in

Ellen White's writings. She was an exception to the assertion that
there was little ecclesiological reflection during the 1890s. Her
emphasis relative to the church and its organization, however, was
more of an affirmation of the need for organization than a rationale
for a specific structural form.
 260

session by A. X. Jones did not support that cause.1

In 1892, S. N. Haskell described the organizational plan of

the Israelites as they journeyed from Egypt to Canaan. In that

article Haskell claimed that the Mosaic plan of organization should be

the pattern for the structures of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

He described four aspects of that plan that he thought should "never

be forgotten." First, God's organization was perfect. It "embraced

all Israel in one general organization, while . . . individuality was

preserved." Second, all Israel acknowledged the appointment of

certain individuals to prominent positions. Third, The plan of

organization was so minute that "it extended to . . . everything

connected with the journeyings of Israel in the wilderness." Fourth,

the plan was adaptable. It was further developed in the days of

David. "No one who has ever carefully studied this order connected

with God's people," Haskell continued, "can fail to be impressed with

the fact that the nearer relation we sustain to God, the more perfect

will be the order of our worship.

After 1901, apologists for the reorganized structural form of

the denomination referred more often to the Mosaic plan of

^Earnest A. Raymond, "Organization: The Science of Life's

Development," 4-part series in RH, 11 December 1900, 786-87; 25
December 1900, 818-19; 1 January 1901, 5; 29 January 1901, 69.
Idem, "Organization: The Early Church," 3-part series in RH, 12
February 1901, 98-99; 26 February 1901, 133; 5 March 1901, 146-47;
idem, "Organization: The Remnant Church,” RH, 19 March 1901, 178-79;
idem, "The General Conference," RH, 26 March 1901, 194-95. It is
possible that Earnest Raymond was related to W. L. Raymond who had
been influential in shaping Jones's theories and attitudes towards
the church in the mid-1880s (see Knight, From 1888 to Apostasy. 180).

^S. N. Haskell, "Is Organization of God?" RH, 11 October

1892, 634.
 261

organization than was the case before 1901. While Loughborough

referred to the Mosaic scheme in much the same way as had Haskell in

1892 (as an illustration of the order that should characterize the

church) Daniells and Spicer used it as their specific theological

rationale for the form of denominational structure.b In articles

published by them, particularly between 1905 and 1909 when the new

organization was under concerted attack, the Mosaic plan of

organization was almost always used first in their attempts to show

that there was biblical support for the form of organization which the

church had adopted.^

In an article written in 1907, Daniells called the mosaic

organizational pattern "the most perfect organization applicable to

human society." He then described eight aspects of that

organizational pattern which were descriptive of the structure that

had been adopted by Seventh-day Adventists. To clarify his point even

^■J. N. Loughborough, "The Church: Order in Ancient Israel,"

RH, 9 April 1901, 234-35. This article was published while the
General Conference session of 1901 was in progress. Whether
Loughborough had prepared it before the session is impossible to say.
Its impact on the delegates also cannot be ascertained. It is worthy
of note, however, that the Mosaic plan of organization was chosen as
the subject of the article describing the church that was inserted in
the issue of the RH which was published during the General Conference
session. Both the previous edition and the subsequent edition of the
EH carried articles which discussed different themes altogether--New
Testament illustrations of church unity and order--and the article on
the Mosaic plan appeared to be out of sequence.

^A. G. Daniells, "Organization--No. 15," RH, 16 May 1907, 4-5;

w - A. Spicer, "The Gospel Order--No.2," RH. 1 April 1909, 5-6. See
also S. N. Haskell, "Order,” RH, 30 May 1907, 9-10; and J. S.
Washburn, "The Author of Order," RH, 6 June 1907, 9-10. The article
by Spicer, together with the other seven in the series was later
Printed in pamphlet form. See W. A. Spicer, Gospel Order: A Brief
Sijtline of the Bible Principles of Organization (Washington, D.C.:
Review and Herald, [1909]).
 262

further, he then delineated six aspects of the "plan of organization

adopted by Seventh-day Adventists" that were "very similar" to that of

Moses. He concluded that

this comparison might be carried still further, but what has been
pointed out will prove sufficient to make it plain that there is a
very close resemblance between that simple, complete, and
efficient system of organization provided for the church
established by Moses, and the organization worked out for the
remnant church called out by the threefold message of Rev. 14:6-
14.1

Jones strongly objected to Daniells's use of the Mosaic plan

of organization as the basis of the Seventh-day Adventist form of

organization. He maintained that "the Mosaic order was for the

direction and government of the church in the Mosaic or Old Testament

times only: and has not, and can not possibly have, any place in the

church of the Christian or New Testament times." He maintained that

"the Christian order, and the Christian order alone," was that form of

governance which should be utilized by "the church in the Christian,

or New Testament times.

Jones was justified in maintaining that the New Testament

discussion of the church, particularly the local church, had been

inadequately considered by those who were defending the reorganized

structure. It does appear somewhat incongruous that an organization

whose form was decided with reference to an eschatological goal should

find its theological rationale in a model over three millennia old.

But Jones's criticisms again indicated that he had failed to realize

that whenever and wherever the church exists, it is a sociological

-*-A. G. Daniells, "Organization--No. 15," 5.

^Jones, An Appeal. 33-42.

 263

entity as well as a theological entity, and that those sociological

constants which speak to the organizational form of the church should

be considered alongside theological categories. Mosaic organizational

form illustrated the Seventh-day Adventist structure so well because

it was primarily a sociological plan, not a theological dictum. This

distinction Jones consistently overlooked. For different reasons, so

did the leaders of the church allied with Daniells.

Jones's objections seem to have made no substantial difference

to the attitude of the leaders of the church toward the pattern of

Mosaic organization. William Spicer was still using it in 1930 as his

first example of biblical organization principles. Other leaders

followed his example. T

That is not to say that church leaders did not refer to other

theological grounds for organization, but apart from their use of the

illustration of the Mosaic plan, their reliance on scripture was more

with reference to the need for organizational principles than it was

with reference to a specific plan of organization or reorganization.

They maintained, for example, that the Lord was "a God of order,"

while Lucifer was "the author of confusion."^ They understood that

Christ was the head of the church and that the church was his body.

In the opening prayer at the 1903 General Conference session, G. A.

Irwin requested that while the church had a visible leader, "the great

Tw. A. Spicer, "This Second Advent Movement: An Organized

Movement", RH, 24 April 1930, 5-6; S. G. Haughey, "Our Church
Organization," RH, 12 March 1931, 11-12; J. L. McElhany, "Principles
°f Conference Administration," Ministry, March 1938, 5-7.

^W. A. Spicer, "Gospel Order--No. 1," RH, 25 March 1909, 4.

 264

Head of the Church may take his rightful place in this Conference.

But the headship of Christ did not obviate the need for human leaders.

Daniells wrote to L. R. Conradi in 1903:

Every board must have a chairman or president, that will be the

recognized head. That is too obvious to require argument. I have
said that a flock of geese have [sic! a leader. We can not do
business, nor carry on anything like organized effort without
administrative servants, and this requires someone selected from
among the brethren who shall be administrator or executioner. I
can not harmonize Doctor Waggoner's theory with his practice. I
think this whole movement against organization which we saw
manifested during the Conference is a bit of a clap-trap.1
2

The concept of unity in diversity was occasionally discussed.-^

Daniells's perspective was revealed in a letter to W. C. White and

A. T. Jones. He wrote that it was "very difficult to harmonize all

the peculiar elements the Lord calls into his vineyard." Daniells was

not really sure that those diverse elements could be harmonized at

all. He admitted, however, that "he [the Lord] knows how to do it,

and I suppose he can teach us how."^

1Sten 1903, 27 March 1903, 2:30 P.M., RG 0, GCAr, 2.

Immediately following, with reference to Israel in the wilderness and
possibly as an allusion to the Mosaic form of organization, Irwin
requested that "the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by
night overshadow this place" (ibid).

2A. G. Daniells to L. R. Conradi, 1 July 1903, RG 11, LB 30,

GCAr. In that letter Daniells wrote to Conradi that the church had no
visible head other than Christ. He was speaking with reference to the
position taken by Jones and Waggoner at the General Conference
session of 1903.

^The theme of unity in diversity was particularly used by

Ellen White. Her son, W. C. White, occasionally referred to it. In
1900, when writing to an "old friend and school-mate," he said: "In
our schools we should aim at unity in diversity, that is, diversity in
detail but unity as to the general spirit and plan of the work" (W. C.
White to Isadore L. Green, 10 April 1900, LB 15, EGWO-DC).

^A. G. Daniells to W. C. White and A. T. Jones, 23 September

1901, RG 11, LB 24, GCAr.
 265

"Unity in diversity" was even less mentioned after the

confrontation with Kellogg in mid-1902 and the dissension at the 1903

General Conference session. Those who advocated a christocentric

organizational structure were insisting on individuality and

independence far too much to make it possible for the others to

advocate "unity-in-diversity" without appearing to play right into

their hands.

The role of the Holy Spirit also was discussed very little by

those advocating an eschatological-missiological model of structure in

comparison to those advocating a christocentric model. Jones and

^aggoner were insistent that the specific role of the Spirit with each

individual was to bring him or her into fellowship with the church and

to maintain that fellowship. Daniells, Spicer, and their allies did

not consider the role of the Spirit in the church as a function of his

role in the life of each component part of the church. For them, it

was the church that was guided by the Spirit. In 1909 Spicer implied

that if the Spirit had guided the church to adopt a form of

organization, why should there be any dissention regarding its form?

What Spicer apparently failed to realize was that when he

flddressed the role of the Spirit, he only addressed that role in

relation to the universal church. He said nothing about the role of

the Spirit in relation to the local church in that article. In fact,

his whole series, his arguments were selected so as to defend the

organization of the universal church. While it is true that Jones and

^aggoner based their argument on the nature of the local church and

^W. A Spicer, "Gospel Order--No. 5," RH, 22 April 1909, 5.

 266

the organizational concepts which arose from that, it is just as true

that in his attempt to give a New Testament rationale for corporate

organization, Spicer neglected organizational concepts which could be

derived from those sections of the New Testament which discussed the

local church. He was not the only one to do that. All who wrote in

the Review and Herald in support of the eschatological-missiological

foundation for church structure in the decade after the reorganization

of 1901-03, did the same t h i n g . A l l , that is, except Ellen White.

The Ecclesiology of Ellen White

Throughout the 1890s and the 1910s Ellen White maintained an

ecclesiological and ecclesiastical viewpoint which held in balance

r\
both christocentric and eschatological-missiological dimensions.

While it is true that she did support Daniells in his efforts to

reorganize the church, it is also true that her support was not

unqualified, and that she felt quite free to rebuke him when his ideas

^W. A. Spicer, "Gospel Order," 8-part series in RH, 25 March

1909, 4-5; 1 April 1909, 5-6; 8 April 1909, 5-6; 15 April 1909, 6; 22
April 1909, 5; 29 April 1909, 5-6; 6 May 1909, 5-6; 13 May 1909, 7-8.
See also, A. G. Daniels, "Organization: A Brief Account of Its
History in the Development of the Cause of the Third Angel's
Message," 15-part series in RH, 31 January 1907, 5-6; 7 February 1907,
5-6; 14 February 1907, 5; 21 February 1907, 5-6; 28 February 1907, 6;
7 March 1907, 5-6; 14 March 1907, 5-6; 21 March 1907, 4-5; 28 March
1907, 5-6; 4 April 1907, 5-6; 11 April 1907, 5-6; 18 April 1907, 5-6;
25 April 1907, 4-6; 9 May 1907, 5; 16 May 1907, 4-5; T. E. Bowen,
"The Order and Organization of the Apostolic Church," 2-part series
in RH, 2 May 1907, 9-10; 9 May 1907, 9-10; G. I. Butler, "The Church:
Its Organization, Order, and Discipline," RH, 9 May 1907, 2;
H. W. Cottrell, "Church Order," RH, 23 May 1907, 8-9; S. N. Haskell,
"Order," RH, 30 May 1907, 9-10; J. S. Washburn, "The Author of Order,"
RH, 6 June 1907, 9-10.

^No attempt can be made here to conduct an extended

investigation of the ecclesiology of Ellen White. Such should be the
task of another research project.
 267

of organization and administration were not according to her own.

Ellen White's expressed ecclesiological concerns during the

period of reorganization included: (1) the headship of Christ,3 (2)

the priesthood of believers,2 (3) the corporate nature of the church,3

(4) the church as a building with Christ as the foundation,^1 (5) the

Missionary nature of the church,"’ and (6) the separation between the

church and the world.® That Ellen White was able to integrate what

were to others irreconcilable positions was demonstrated by her use

both of the principle of unity in diversity and her approval of the

Mosaic plan of organization as a model of church organization.

Ellen White's unity-in-diversity theme was often associated

with her use of the symbol of the vine and the branches. Usually, her

references to the vineyard or to the vine and branches theme discussed

the broadness of the task and the diversity that was to be found both

3The context for Ellen White's insistence on the headship of

Christ was the tendency of administrative and evangelistic leaders to
adopt authoritarian attitudes toward their fellow-workers and church
Members. For example, she wrote to E. E. Franke, who had been
Particularly ungracious toward S. N. Haskell in New York, "Christ is
the only Head of the Church. He only has the right to demand of man
unlimited obedience to His requirements" (Ellen G. White to E. E.
pranke, January 1901, Letter 19, 1901, EGWO-DC).

2Ellen G. White to W. S. Hyatt, 15 February 1900, Letter 26

39°0, EGWB-AU.

3GC Bulletin. 1903, 10.

, ^Ellen G. White, "The Need of Equalizing the Work," MS 109,

1899, EGWO-DC.

SEllen G. White, "Missionary Enterprise the Object of Christ's

Church," 2-part series in RH, 30 October 1894, 3-4; 6 November 1894,
3-4.

6Ellen G. White, "No Union between the Church and the World,"
26 February 1895, 3-4.
 268

in the workers and in those to whom the gospel was to be preached.^

Even Daniells picked up Ellen White's use of the vineyard theme and

used it as she did for a time. There does not appear to be any record

of him doing that after 1903, however.^

The probable reason why Daniells did not allude to the

principle of unity in diversity much after 1903 was that it could too

easily be made to fit the organizational scheme that Jones and

Waggoner were advocating with their stress on individuality, spiritual

gifts, and the church as a body of different and diverse elements.

^■Ellen G. White to the General Conference Committee and the

Publishing Board of the Review and Herald and Pacific Press, 8 April
1894, Letter 71, 1894, EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White, "To the General
Conference and Our Publishing Institutions," MS 66, 1898, EGWB-AU;
Ellen G. White, "The Southern California Conference," MS 90, 1901,
EGWB-AU; Ellen G. White, Testimonies. 7:171-74. Study needs to be
done not only on Ellen White's use of the terms "unity" and
"diversity" but also on her use of the images of the "vine and the
branches" and the "vineyard." A random sampling from unpublished
primary sources of her use of the image of the vine and its branches
has indicated that when she uses that image, she almost always has in
mind the concept of unity in diversity. A random sampling of her use
of the image of the vineyard has indicated that the image is used
almost always in the context of mission and that it often carries the
connotation of unity in diversity. In her letters and manuscripts,
the terms "unity" and "diversity" are used together forty-three times.
The first time that she used them together was in 1888. See Ellen G.
White, "Who Shall Be Saved?" MS 19, 1888, EGWO-DC. The term
"vineyard" was used 991 times by Ellen White. Her first use of that
term was in 1859. See Ellen G. White to Brother E, n.d., Letter 21,
1859, EGWB-AU. The majority of references were post-1888, however
(only 90 references appeared before 1888--less than 10 percent).
Reference to the "vine and the branches" occurred 224 times in her
unpublished primary sources. The first was in 1847. See Ellen G.
White to Eli Curtis, 21 April 1847, Letter 2, 1847, EGWB-AU. Only
nine references appeared between 1847 and 1888, a forty-one-year
period (4 percent). All the other references (215) appeared in the
years after 1888. The last reference was in 1912. See Ellen G.
White, MS 17, 1912, EGWO-DC.

^A. G. Daniells to W. C. White and A. T. Jones, 23 September

1901, RG 11, LB 24, GCAr.
 269

Even Ellen White spoke of unity in diversity only a few times after

1904.1

Her allusions to the Mosaic plan of organization as a biblical

illustration of the plan of organization in the Seventh-day Adventist

Church go back further than her use of "unity in diversity." It

appears that her first reference to the organization of the Israelites

under Moses was in 1868. ^ At that time the Seventh-day Adventist

Church had only been an organized denomination for a short period.

Surprisingly, the concept was not used extensively by other writers in

Adventist publications until S. N. Haskell used it in 1892 and J. N.

Loughborough in 1901. After 1901 Ellen White apparently alluded to

the Mosaic form of organization only once.3

^-Between 1888 and 1903 she used the phrase or the terms in
close relationship 37 times. After 1904 she only used them in the
same way four times. See Ellen G. White, "Unity in Council Meetings,"
MS 158, 1907, EGWO-DC; Ellen G. White, "A Missionary Education," MS
59, 1907, EGWO-DC; Ellen G. White, "The Spirit of Independence," MS
38a, 1909, EGWO-DC; Ellen G. White to J. A. Burden, 6 May 1906, Letter
LAO, 1906, EGWB-AU. Ellen White occasionally regarded diversity as a
negative value. In MS 158, written in December 1907, diversity was
set over against unity as something to be avoided. In her last
reference to unity in diversity, she returned to her overwhelming
Usage of unity and diversity as co-equal values. Speaking at that
time of the need for unity in diversity, she insisted that "the
leaders among God's people are to guard against the danger of
condemning the methods of individual, workers who are led by the Lord
to do a special work" (MS 38a, 1909).

^Ellen G. White, Testimonies. 1:650-53. See also, idem,

Sospel Workers (Oakland, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1892), 158-60.

3a computer search of the unpublished manuscripts and letters

°E Ellen White written after 1901 has not turned up any references to
the Mosaic plan of organization. The search was conducted by Tim
Poirier of EGWO-DC on 13 September 1988. The only possible allusion
that has been found is a reference to the need to study the counsel
given to Moses in "Principles for the Guidance of Men in Positions of
Responsibility,” MS 140, 1902, EGWB-AU.
 270

The Consequences of a
Dipolar Ecclesiology

Seventh-day Adventist ecclesiological thinking at the

beginning of the twentieth century was divided between those, on the

one hand, who chose to emphasize a congregational form of organization

with diversity as its greatest value, and those, on the other hand,

who chose to emphasize a hierarchical form of organization with unity

as its greatest value. Even though Ellen White assumed a median

position with respect to both of those viewpoints, and even if it was

considered desirable to have a church polity which combined elements

of unity and diversity, the polemical attitudes of denominational

leaders prevented any attempt to bring both of those viewpoints

together. Strong defense of the reorganized structure actually

resulted in movement towards the very thing that Ellen White had

warned against in the 1890s: centralization.

Soteriology

Although the theological starting point of those who advocated

an eschatological-missiological structure was not soteriology, it

should not be thought that they did not appreciate its importance.

The 1888 Minneapolis General Conference session had had its impact on

the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Indeed, at the 1901 General Conference session there was a

disposition toward open confession and repentance. 0. A. Olsen called

for regeneration and reorganization. The missionary farewell service,

which began in mid-afternoon on Tuesday, April 23, had to be adjourned

and continued that evening due to the number of participants who

 271

wished to give public testimonies as to their faith in the Lord. At

those two meetings, 140 persons spoke publicly of their faith and

commitment. Olsen said that he "did not want the meeting to close."^

The 1901 General Conference session was a session which

emphasized the personal regeneration of the participants as well as

the reorganization of the structures of the church. Certainly Jones

end Waggoner and their associates were keen to press the implications

°f the relationship between the two as far as possible. However, it

seems that those who were not already in sympathy with their viewpoint

did not extrapolate the individual regeneration into the realm of

organization. Regeneration was vital, but it did not extend into the

Very essence of the church and impact on the form of organization.

Rather, regeneration was seen to be a prerequisite to participation in

the church and its task, and it was the task that informed the form of

organization, not the regeneration of the individuals involved in the

task. Regeneration merely enabled personal performance of the task

that was to be accomplished.

Conclusion

In this chapter, inductive investigation of the historical

data has revealed that numerous crises confronted the church during

the 1890s. Its administrative structures were in danger of

disintegration unless urgent changes were made.

In addressing these, theological presuppositions relative to

the purpose of the church's existence were foundational to the

^ C Bulletin. 1901, 269, 458-75.

 272

position that the leaders of the church adopted. Those presup­

positions were not stated in the form of succinct ecclesiological

propositions from which structural principles and form could be

derived. Rather, they grew out of the sense of destiny and divine

appointment to duty that had been characteristic of the Seventh-day

Adventist Church since its inception. They were focused on the task

of proclaiming the gospel to the world.

Because ecclesiological presuppositions and principles were

not clearly stated, and therefore not carefully balanced, the

ecclesiastical agenda of the church was shaped in the context of a

polemic between those who held a more ontological view of the nature

of the church and those whose views were more functional. The outcome

was that a functional structure that was grounded in eschatological

and missiological assumptions was shaped in order to facilitate the

missionary task of the church.

It has been proposed that those denominational structures were

established by divine mandate. It has even been claimed that the

"four-level structure . . . came to the Church from Scripture, Ellen

G. White's counsels, and divine providence."^ If by that assertion it

is implied that the principles which have shaped the form of

organization in the Seventh-day Adventist Church were derived from

those sources, then the data supports the contention to the extent

that some unstated theological presuppositions molded the thinking of

those who favored the eschatological-missiological model. But if by

that assertion it is claimed that the structures themselves were

^Beach, "Reflections on Church Structure," 18.

 273

prescribed by any of the sources suggested, then that contention

cannot be supported by the data.

Theological reflection indicates that the principles of

organization were derived in part from revelation available to the

church. Historical reflection indicates that theology was not the

only source from which the principles of organization were derived.

The church is not only a divine institution, but also a human

organization in an imperfect context. Idealistic principles must be

tempered with realism, and theological prescriptions must be combined

with sociological models. The church is not a unilateral organization

n°r an amorphous organism.

 CHAPTER V

THE PRINCIPLES OF REORGANIZATION

Introduction

Appeals to "principle" and references to "principles" were

common in Adventist verbal exchanges, personal correspondence,

literature, and sermons in the latter nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries. Particularly among the leaders of the denomination was

there a concern that administrative decisions should be made on the

basis of "principle." Even individual church members were exhorted to

make personal decisions with reference to "principle.

Correct "principles" were regarded as foundational and

indispensable in the educational enterprises of the church, its

medical missionary work, the publishing work, the ministry, financial

affairs and management, personal relationships, prophetic

interpretation, and the organization of the church.*

2 Ellen White

■'•An indication of the pervasive use of the term "principle"

can be obtained by reference to the Laser Concordance to the published
works of Ellen G. White available in EGWB-AU. Under the words
"principle," "principle's," and "principles," there are a total of
10,152 entries. By way of comparison, under the word "rule," there
are only 1944 entries, approximately half of which would probably
refer to the usage of the word as a verb rather than as a noun.

2Sten 1903, 7 April 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 37, 48; Sten 1903, 12

April 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 51, 53, 55; A. G. Daniells to G. B. Starr, 2
August 1903, RG 11, LB 31, GCAr; Ellen G. White, " Consolidation of
the Publishing Work," MS 31, 1895, EGWB-AU; G. A. Irwin, "How Can the
College Best Train Young Men for the Ministry?" (lecture delivered at

274
 275

exhorted the president of the General Conference not to "swerve from

right principles" and to be "as firm as a rock to principle." A. G.

Daniells emphatically declared that "principles, not members, ought to

rule in the work of God." As the conflict between Daniells and

Kellogg reached its climax, Daniells keenly anticipated the "triumph

°f right principles.

Adherence to right "principles" was advocated, but the habit

°f blindly following wrong "principles" was denounced. Again

reference was made to a wide spectrum of concerns. In regard to the

authoritarian and centralized control being exercised by the General

Conference, Ellen White spoke, for example, of "strange principles"

that were being established in an effort to "control . . . the minds

of men"; "corrupted principles" that were robbing the center of the

work of its regard for "the sacred character of the cause of God"; and

"the principles of Rome" which were the basis upon which some were

frying to bring about centralized control. Repeatedly, she castigated

the leaders of the General Conference for becoming "corrupted with

wrong sentiments and principles. Arguments were conducted on the

the Battle Creek College Institute, [October 1898]), RG 11, LB 19,

GCAr; W. C. White to S. H. Lane, 29 September 1901, RG 9, W. C. White
folder 2, GCAr; D. X. Bordeau, "Principles by Which to Interpret
Prophecy.--No. 1," RH, 27 November 1888, 737-38.

■*-Ellen G. White, "Words of Counsel Regarding Management of the

Work of God," MS 91, 1899, EGWB-AU; Bulletin of the European Union
SgHference Held in London. May 15-25. 1902. (n.p., 1902), 3; A. G.
Daniells to W. C. White, 23 October 1903, Incoming Files, EGWO-DC.

^Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies for Ministers and

Horkers--Nn Q (Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald, 1897), 16;
E1len G. White to The Men Who Occupy Responsible Positions in the
Work, 1 July 1896, Letter 4, 1896, EGWB-AU; idem, Special Testimonies
£gr_Ministers 9 4-5; Ellen G. White, "Consolidation of the
 276

basis of "principle," and opposing views on the floor of the General

Conference session were promoted with references to "principle^

Certainly "principle" was used in a wide variety of contexts

and with a wide variety of referents, but it was not always clear that

those who employed the term understood how they were using it. On the

one hand, it appears that an appeal to "principle" or a reference to

"principles" occasionally denoted the foundational elements of the

object. In those cases, "principles" were regarded as foundational,

both in the sense that they were causal (i.e., the effected action,

form, or rule was derived from the principle) and essential (i.e.,

they prescribed the necessary essence of the effected action, form, or

rule). In other words, they were prior to and had priority over

action, form, or rule.^

Publishing Work," MS 31, 1895, EGWB-AU.

^For example, there was considerable discussion on the floor

of the 1903 General Conference session over "gleaning"--the practice
of allowing those working in needy fields to visit more affluent
churches and make direct appeals for funds on behalf of those fields.
W. C. White argued for the practice. He called the attention of the
delegates to the "principle" of the poor being permitted by the Lord
"to glean after the harvesters" (Sten 1903, 8 April 1903, 9.45 A.M. ,
RG 0, GCAr, 13). He also cited the experience of G. I. Butler who had
visited California in May 1902 and made appeals to the churches with
the sanction of A. T. Jones, the president of the conference. See
also W. C. White to W. A. Spicer, 28 May 1902, RG 11, 1903-W Folder 1,
GCAr). In reply, however, S. H. Lane contended that there was another
"principle" that ought to be well guarded. If gleaning were permitted
then the churches would be deluged "all the time with appeals" (Sten
1903, 8 April 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 21-22). Some gleaners would be
persuasive and give the impression that their work was of greater
importance than some other branch of the work. Confusion would be the
result. Both White and Lane claimed to be arguing on the basis of
principle, although they were presenting different points of view.

^See, for example, S. M. I. Henry, "A Plea for Principle," RH.

25 April 1899, 261. That the difference between principles and norms
was understood, was indicated by 0. A. Olsen. Writing to his brother
 277

On the other hand, it was often the case that an appeal to

"principle" was merely an appeal for compliance to regulations and

rules. In an article printed in Review and Herald in 1894, for

example, "principle" was defined as "’a settled rule of action; a

governing law of conduct; an opinion or belief which exercises a

directing influence on the life and behavior.'" The author continued:

"Principle is a rule governing all right thinking and every good

action." Although the author then briefly described principles as

"fundamental truths" controlling everything, his usage of the term

indicated that he thought of a "principle" as a "rule" or "law." In

other words, the term "principle" was being used to refer to a norm or

a rule, and when an appeal to "principle" was made without reference

to foundation or cause, compliance was expected on the basis of form,

rule, or action, rather than on the basis of authentic principle.^

There were some who recognized the danger of confusing "rule"

and "principle." In an address to the session of the General

Conference in 1903, S. P. S. Edwards made an appeal for right

Principles, particularly with reference to healthful living. He was

unequivocal. He informed the delegates that they could not live

simply by "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not," but by the foundational

in Denmark who had complained that Americans seemed "to talk on

Principles almost altogether," Olsen admitted that "sometimes it is
easier to talk on principles than it is to come down to definiteness"
(0. A. Olsen to M. M. Olsen, 7 July 1895, RG 11, LB 14, GCAr). A
Principle which did not yield appropriate norms was just as
undesirable as norms that were not founded on principle. Principle
cannot be separated from form as theory cannot be separated from
practice.

^-Fred M. Rossiter, "Principle," RH, 27 November 1894, 739.

 278

principle of righteousness in their "keeping of the Sabbath," their

"health reform," and in "any other phases of the t r u t h . T h e

following year in an editorial in the Review and Herald. W. W.

Prescott reaffirmed Edwards's emphasis. Although he did not use the

word "rule," using in preference the more common designation

"principle," he demonstrated that he knew how to differentiate between

principles and rules when he said:

There is one principle which must be the warp and the woof of "the
principles" in order that they shall be an integral part of this
message, and that principle is the fundamental truth of the
gospel,--the doctrine of righteousness by faith, of salvation from
sin through the merits and ministry of Jesus the Son of God. When
we have "the principles" without this essential principle we have
simply the principles of self-exaltation and self-salvation.^

In this study, the term "principle" is used with reference to

factors which were determinative of the process and form of

reorganization of the administrative structure of the Seventh-day

Adventist Church. It was a term commonly used by those who were

involved in that reorganization. Contextualization of the debate

which took place in the process dictates that terminology similar to

that which was used at the time be used to describe the ideas and

presuppositions which affected the outcome of the process of

reorganization.

In this chapter, the concern is not with specific

organizational forms but with the principles which were determinative*

5
1

1Sten 1903, 12 April 1903, 3 P.M., RG 0, GCAr.

*[W. W. Prescott], "The Principle and ’the Principles,'" RH .

15 September 1904, 3-4. Prescott explained that the same term could
be used to define widely different viewpoints. Unless it was clearly
understood that there were certain foundational principles, then there
was "a danger of degrading ’the principles' to a mere shibboleth."
 279

of those forms. Form is a function of principle, time, and place.

The denominational leaders who had the greater impact on the course of

reorganization did not consider that the Bible prescribed specific

forms of organization which were to be imposed on all Christian

churches for all time, but they did understand that principles which

were to inform the determination of structure were to be found there.

Certainly Ellen White did not prescribe specific form, but she

did describe principles of organization, she did affirm that the New

Testament set forth "simple organization and church order," she did

encourage reorganization, and she did express her approval of the form

°f church organization which was appropriate for the needs of the

church and its vibrant missionary endeavor in the early twentieth

century. However, it does not appear to have been her intention to

derive innovative forms of organization from the principles she

advocated.^ Such was the task of the church.

Such is still the task of the church. The church has the

Privilege and responsibility to institutionalize structural forms

which meet the specifications established by those principles which

are considered by the church to have priority. In the early years of

the twentieth century principles of organization were prioritized

according to their relation to the mission of the church. Study of

those principles which were deemed foundational to the reorganization

°f the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1901-1903 can still assist the

church to prioritize principles which inform structures appropriate

^■Ellen G. White to the Leading Ministers in California, 6

December 1909, Letter 178, 1909, EGWB-AU.
 280

for the contemporary international character and mission of the

church.

Principles of Reorganization:
The Christocentric Model

At the 1903 General Conference session, after the revised

constitution had been adopted, Jones had stated that unity meant "a

good deal more" to him "than any personal convictions or opinions"

that he held. He affirmed that the constitution that had been adopted

was now his constitution and that there would be "no more loyal man to

that constitution" than himself.'*' But Jones was not able to abide by

his stated resolution. Apparently other principles were higher on his

scale of values than the need for unity. Although he believed in

unity because it was a theological category, and espoused it publicly

because he did not want to be perceived as an anarchist, he regarded

unity more as a consequence of the beliefs of the church than as a

category which took priority over principle and action. Jones's

desire for unity was not prioritized to such an extent that it would

permit him to compromise his perception of theological and

9
organizational orthodoxy.

1 Sten 1903, 10 April 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 1.

^By way of comparison, Daniells apparently came to the place

by 1903 where he regarded unity as a value which, in practice,
transcended both the value of explicit ecclesiological statement and
the need to derive organizational form from a theological position.
The reason for Daniells's viewpoint was that as a consequence of his
clash with Kellogg, he had been persuaded that world-wide
organizational unity was indispensable if the mission of the church
was to be facilitated. Since 1901 his emphasis had shifted somewhat.
In 1901 he had been much more willing to recognize and endeavor to
institutionalize diversity.
 281

Organizational Starting Point

Since Jones's soteriology was defined with reference to the

individual, personal freedom and individuality had become the focal

Points of his principles of organization.^ Jones expressed his

priorities by starting his organizational paradigm with the principle

°f self-government and working up. However, his poor organizational

^■Reporting on a meeting held to organize the Pacific Union

Medical Missionary Association, of which he was elected chairman,
Jones asserted that the principle of self-government was the principle
of reorganization. He maintained that "this order of things finds in
with the individual Christian, its source of life and energy; and
so of organization" (A. T. Jones, "Principles of Organization of the
Pacific Union Medical Missionary Association," RH, 24 February 1903,
9). In a second article with the same title, Jones endeavored to
support his contention by reference to some paragraphs that had been
written by Ellen White. Referring to a "testimony" that had been
tead by White herself on the morning of the meeting, Jones informed
the committee members that "its whole tenor carries everything back to
the individual with God, and calls upon us to respect individual
responsibility, individual talent, and individual effort." However,
Perusal of the quotations from White's "testimony" that Jones included
fd the article reveals that they do not wholly support his
eontention. While they discuss decentralization and the need to
abandon authoritarian administrative styles, they do not say that the
Individual is the only starting point for the derivation of principles
t° govern the erection of an administrative structures--at least not
in the way in which Jones was trying to interpret them. Idem,
Principles of Organization of the Pacific Union Medical Missionary
Association; Concluded," RH, 3 March 1903, 9. These articles were
written just before the 1903 General Conference session convened.
Three months later, after the session had passed, R. C. Porter, an
nlly of Jones, continued the crusade to uphold the place of the
individual in the scheme. He wrote of the controlling influence of
the Spirit in the life of the church and its members. The implication
was that if all were filled with the Spirit, there would be "perfect
unity of action" and no need of organization. He continued; "In the
church in his [Christ's] day he organized no confederacy to enforce
"is wishes in the plans of the church work or selections of church
officers." His "gentleness, forbearance, pity, and faithfulness" were
Enough. Although Porter did comment in passing that the Spirit did
n°t ignore organization," the purpose of his article was to support
those who upheld a congregational form as the most desirable form of
°rganization. R. C. Porter, "The Church of Christ a Religious Liberty
Society," RH, 16 June 1903, 8-9.
 282

sensitivity, failure to appreciate the dimensions and unique

contingencies of a world-wide mission, and theological bias prevented

him from developing his organizational concepts beyond the needs of

the local congregation.^

Daniells, on the other hand, started his paradigm with the

world-wide task of the church and worked down. While Jones viewed the

whole in terms of each component part, Daniells regarded each

component in terms of the whole, the task of the whole being to take

the gospel to the world. Daniells's organizational and missionary

experience shaped his priorities. However, his focus on the global

mission of the church and the accomplishment of that task was

^Notice the order of priority that Jones created in this

paragraph: "Individual self-government necessarily expands to local
self-government of the collection of individuals in a locality. . . .
From the many localities local self-government expands to State or
conference self-government. From the several State or conference
organizations self-government expands to union conference self-
government. And from union conferences, self-government expands to
General Conference self-government: each organization governing itself
only, in the field of its own activities, and not attempting to govern
any other" (Jones, "Principles of Organization,11 9). What Jones
completely overlooked was that each successive level of administration
above the local church could only find its "field of activity in the
sum of the "fields" of its constituent parts, and that therefore it
could not govern itself without at the same time governing the
organizational level "below" it. Thus Jones, in practice, was never
able to move past the local church as the unit of his organizational
system, and in the final analysis that was the reason why his system
had to be congregational. Without the institutionalization of a
process which legitimizes authority, there can be no structure other
than congregational structure. This Jones would not admit. In 1906
he contended that the superintendence of Christ could place the
necessary controls on the organizational structure of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church in order to prevent "disorganization, confusion, and
anarchy." He stated, "I know by the eternal truth, that the Lord
Jesus Christ alone, in His place at and as the Head of His Church, is
able to organize His people, His Church, and His cause, far better
than can be done without Him in that place, and with a man in that
place at the head of His cause" (Jones, Final Word. 45-46).
 283

antithetical to his own intention that the structure of the

denomination give attention to the needs of local church congregations

and constituencies.L

Principles of Reorganization

Because the mystical relationship between "God and the

individual Christian" was fundamental to Jones's theology, his

Principles of organization were founded on "the principle of self-

government." His concept of "self-government" was foundational to his

whole argument.^ Just before the 1903 General Conference session,

Jones authored a series of two articles on the principles of

organization which had been adopted by the newly incorporated Pacific

Union Medical Missionary Association, of which he was chairman. In

those articles he took the opportunity to expound his own bias

regarding the principles of organization. He stated:

In a word, the principle of reorganization of the General

Conference is the principle of self-government. The General
Conference pushes back to union conferences all that can be done
by union conferences; the union conferences push back to the

^Daniells's concern for local needs and his desire for broad-
based decision making was best evidenced in his endeavor to establish
a participatory election process at the local conference constituency
meetings held immediately after 1901, and by his hope that the General
Conference executive committee would be an advisory rather than an
executive body. See below pages 314-17.

^Speaking of Christ's power over death in the raising of

Lazarus, Jones said in 1902: "And that is the very power that goes
with you and me in the preaching of this gospel of reorganization,
which is the gospel of J esus Christ, the third angel's message. To
any soul in this world, bound hand and foot with the bondage and the
Ligaments of Satan all round about, there is a power that goes with
y°u and me . . . to say to that man, Come forth, and he will come
forth. . . . And there he stands a new man, loosed from his bonds, and
free in God through Christ Jesus our Lord. That is self-government,
thank the Lord" (A. T. Jones, "Reorganization," RH, 13 May 1902, 10).
 284

respective conferences all that can be done by the Individual

conferences; the conferences push back to the respective churches
all that can be done by the individual churches; the churches push
back to the individual Christians all that can be done by
individual Christians; and the individual Christian pushes back to
God all that can be done in and through the individual Christian
by God.l (Emphasis supplied.)

The principles which Jones listed in that series of articles

were an elaboration of those which he had set down in an article

almost one year earlier. In that article he had commenced with the

question, "In what does this study of reorganization consist?" He

answered: "Self-government is an essential of the third angel's

message. It is an essential of the gospel. You cannot have the

gospel without it.*

3
1

^A. T. Jones, "Principles of Organization of the Pacific

Union Medical Missionary Association," RH, 24 February 1903, 9. See
also Sten 1903, 9 April 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 50a; A. T. Jones,
"Reorganization," RH, 6 May 1902, 10-11. At the General Conference
executive committee meetings held in November 1902, the meetings at
which the conflict with Kellogg erupted in a public forum, Daniells
declared that his first principle of reorganization was the principle
of "decentralization by the distribution of responsibility" (GCC Min,
13 November 1902, 2:30 P.M., RG 1, GCAr). Jones countered that "the
essence of reorganization is found in the principles of self-
government, with God as the source of life and power in the
government" (GCC Min, 17 November 1902, 3:00 P.M., RG 1, GCAr). In
1901, Daniells would probably have been willing to publicly agree with
much that Jones said about self-government. Especially would he have
looked with favor on the second sentence of the above-quoted
statement. However, at no time did Daniells specifically frame his
conception of the principles of reorganization in the terms chosen by
Jones in the first sentence--he did not use the term "self-
government." He was coming from a different theological and
organizational starting point. Even if, in 1901, he had been
predisposed toward stating his concepts in those terms, his clash with
Kellogg in mid-1902 and the subsequent alliance between Jones and
Kellogg ensured that such was not the case by 1903. That controversy,
initially over the attitude of the administration toward debt, seemed
to catalyze each side around its unifying focal point.

^Jones, "Reorganization," 10. See also idem, "Self-Government

Means Self-Support," RH, 27 May 1902, 9-10; idem, "Self- Government
Means Self-Support," RH, 3 June 1902, 8-10; idem, "Self-Government
 285

In the Review and Herald the following week, Jones wrote again

on the same topic. He went even further with his exposition of the

principle of self-government. He said:

Therefore, self-government is not simply a divine principle.

It is that, and it is more than that; it is a divine attribute.
. . . The principle. the idea, of self-government lies in the
freedom of choice. The power of self-government lies in God in
Jesus Christ.^

From that basis, Jones and his associates derived the other

principles of their scheme of organization:

!• They maintained that it should be the people of God who held power

and authority in the church, not those in particular

administrative positions whom Ellen White had condemned as

gathering all the power to themselves.

2. They quoted Ellen White to substantiate their commitment to

decentralization, not so much of location because they did not see

that as a theologically based issue, but of decision-making power

and authority. However, they tended to interpret White's counsel

regarding decentralization and the abdication of "kingly power" in

a manner which affirmed their presuppositions.

3- They regarded independent General Conferences in three locations

Means Self-Support," RH, 10 June 1902, 9-10. Jones had presented the
concepts in this series of articles in a series of sermons he preached
at the Lake Union Conference session. At that session he had received
both the approval and the backing of A. G. Daniells who was
concurrently acting as president of that union and as the president of
*-be General Conference.

^A. T. Jones, "Reorganization," RH, 13 May 1902, 9-10.

2Sten 1903, 3 April 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 39.

 286

to be better than one centralized General Conference.^

4. They were convinced that three General Conference presidents were

better than one who had sole control.

5. The title "chairman" was preferable to the title "president"

because it did not carry the same authoritarian and centralizing

connotations.

6. The responsibility for control was to be distributed so that it

was located in the place where the burden of labor was being borne

because under such conditions the decisions that were to be made

bore a direct relationship to the problem that was being

encountered.

1See Sten 1903, 27 March 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 22.

2C. H. Parsons (an architect and one of the few lay delegates
at the 1903 General Conference session, or for that matter at any of
the sessions that had been held since organization) had stated that he
believed that it was important that those who had the greatest
interest in a particular enterprise such as an institution, and were
working towards the accomplishing of the purposes and goals of that
enterprise should be most concerned with its control. W. C. White
took up Parsons's theme immediately and insisted that it was "a
fundamental principle" that "should be understood in connection with
all lines of work that where the burden of labor is there rests the
burden of control" (Sten 1903, 3 April 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 20a-21,
emphasis supplied). Parsons and White were not entirely sympathetic
with the position taken by Jones and his associates and certainly they
were not aligned with Kellogg. Writing to Daniells, Parsons stated
that he considered that Kellogg filled "the position of pope
completely" in the medical work. Daniells, in reply, was very
impressed by the analysis of the situation which Parsons had written,
seeing it had come from one of "those who are not directly involved in
the controversy" (C. H. Parsons to A. G. Daniells, 6 January 1903, RG
11, 1903-P Folder, GCAr; A. G. Daniells to C. H. Parsons, 27 February
1903, RG 11, LB 30, GCAr). Despite the fact that it was Parsons and
White who first proposed the idea that those involved in an enterprise
should control it, David Paulson took hold of it and applied it in
terms of his own presuppositions. He expressed his belief that "more
and more the axiom stated by Brother White will be true." It would,
however, be necessary to translate it from "theory into practice," and
the manner in which that was to be done would be determined by the way
 287

7. Self-support was the corollary of self-government. Jones Insisted

that "inevitably, the support must come from the same source as

comes the government," and that such a principle was

"everlastingly fixed."T

The principles that were espoused by Jones and his supporters

were based on selected passages of Scripture and on what they

understood Ellen White to be saying. They enthusiastically set for

themselves the goal of reforming the church. Despite the consequences

°f some extreme positions that became more obvious after 1903, it

should be recognized that they had succeeded in bringing to the

attention of the church in 1897 and again in 1901 the need to

radically modify a system of organization which was beginning to

impede, rather than facilitate, the missionary expansion and spiritual

growth of the church.

But they were not satisfied with what they had accomplished.

They did not regard the reforms of 1901 as reaching the ideal of self-

government .^ Therefore, when in 1903 the session voted to revoke

in which the constitution was to be drafted (Sten 1903, 9 April 1903,

RG 0, GCAr, 100b). Paulson was an ardent supporter of the position of
Jones and Waggoner and had been one of those who submitted the
minority report from the committee on plans and constitution to the
T903 General Conference session.

Clones, "Self-Government Means Self-Support," 27 May 1903, 9.

^While discussing the proposal to change the constitution at

the 1903 General Conference session, Waggoner revealed that he had not
voted for a constitution for the last ten years, including the one
adopted in 1901. Yet he did not oppose the constitution of 1901.
His attitude was that because it had fewer provisions than any
Previous constitution it was better than anything that the church had
ever had. He continued: "It was a step in the right direction: and I
Hail that with joy, as a movement toward the time, as I am just as
sure we will come eventually as I stand here, when all these things
 288

even those reforms which they had regarded in 1901 as the first steps

toward the ideal, they were bitterly disappointed. It is not

surprising that the leaders of their crusade eventually severed their

connection with the church. The polemical, confrontational atmosphere

which was engendered by the dynamics of the whole situation only

hastened their exit.

Failures on their part also contributed to their predicament.

Not so much their failures with respect to character or anything of a

personal nature, or even any inappropriate theological understandings,

but their failure to take into account that much of the counsel given

by Ellen White with respect to the dangers of centralization, kingly

power, and abuses of various kinds was given with specific referents.

They did not sufficiently realize that the specific situation held the

key to the interpretation and application of the principle that was

being discussed. Their failure to allow the situation to impinge upon

the manner in which the principle was to be interpreted meant that

they insisted that the only way to apply a principle was to regard It

as an independent entity, separate from any other principles which

could inform the way it was to be understood. The end result was that

their Interpretation drove them towards an application of a specific

principle which could not be sustained in a multiplex situation.

Together with their logical and hermeneutical shortcomings,

their inability to consider that principles other than those which

fitted their particular theological presuppositions could inform

will be left aside as the toys of childhood" (Sten 1903, 9 April 1903,
RG 0, GCAr, 27-28).
 289

discussion of the organizational nature of the church contributed to

their downfall. Their disregard of the sociological elements in the

church and their insistence that a particular principle, such as self-

government, not be conditioned in its application by other principles

such as the granting of legitimate authority, meant that they had no

way to control the practical application of the principles which they

espoused. The effect was that they had no alternative but to champion

a congregational form of organization which many Adventists

interpreted as promoting the elimination of organization altogether.^

That such would be the end result of their idealistic notions

was already obvious by 1903. Waggoner indicated that he had already

come to the conclusion that the only reason the church needed

organization was that it did not have enough confidence in its own

loyalty to the Holy Spirit, and in the Holy Spirit to keep the church

unified. He was convinced that when the church would trust the Holy

Spirit, then constitutions could "be left aside as the toys of

childhood" and organization would be a thing of the past. If that

were to happen, there would be a "mutual reigning" and "absolute

sovereignty, on the part of each individual, and, above all,

submission on the part of each to one another and to the whole.

Thus it was that three years later (when looking back on the events of

■'•Again, perhaps such a situation as did develop may not have

been necessary if the atmosphere had been one of mutual cooperation
and trust between the parties and if a genuine effort to understand
the point of view of the other side had been demonstrated.

^Sten 1903, 9 April 1903, Rg 0, GCAr, 27-30. Waggoner added

that the only reason why his scheme could not be adopted was not that
there was any limitation or omission as far as the scheme itself was
concerned, but that the church was not yet ready for it.
 290

1903) Jones lamented that from his perspective the denomination had

turned its back on "New Testament order" and evangelical Christianity

and committed itself "openly and positively" to "the first steps of

the papal order.

Still convinced that individual self-government should be the

first of all "Protestant principles" to be considered, Jones did not

hesitate to press his claim that the principle of self-government was

not "allowed in the S.D.A. denomination." Even the very principle of

representation which the church valued so highly, Jones decried as

carrying "in itself the whole principle of papal infallibility." His

O
contention was that nobody could "represent anybody except himself."^

■kjones, An Appeal. 49. See also page 238 above.

^Ibid., 55-56, 45. Jones had earlier drawn attention to the

fact that Daniells himself had espoused the idea that all members who
were in attendance at any given session should be considered to be
delegates. See ibid., 45-46; European Union Conference Bulletin. 2.
By 1907 Jones did not stand alone in expressing this kind of
opposition to the organization of the church. Toward the end of 1906
W. L. Winner, a dentist from Philadelphia, wrote an apologetic for the
position that Jones had espoused since the 1903 General Conference
session. Daniells called Winner's pamphlet "a dangerous little
document." Referring to Winner's style and logic, he wrote to
Prescott that if "Jones had taken the matter up as Winner had, he
would have done far more harm than he did." Daniells found Winner's
document far more threatening "than A.T.'s little leaflet." See W. L.
Winner, Gospel Simplicity. The Need of the Hour in Personal Piety, in
Doctrine, in Organization (Boulder, Colo.; n.p., 1906); A. G. Daniells
to L. R. Conradi, 18 January 1907, RG 11, LB 40, GCAr; A. G. Daniells
to W. W. Prescott, 20 January 1907, RG 11, LB 40, GCAr. See also A.
G. Daniells to C. H. Parsons, 20 January 1907, Rg 11, LB 40, GCAr; A.
G. Daniells to H. W. Cottrell, 20 January 1907, RG 11, LB 40, GCAr; W.
C. White toA. G. Daniells, 14 February 1907, LB 33, EGWO-DC; A. G.
Daniells toW. C. White, 22March 1909, RG 11, LB 45, GCAr; A. G.
Daniells toH. W. Cottrell, 16 April 1909, Rg 11, LB 45, GCAr.
Largely in response to the Winner document with its "seductive,
divisive, and in some respects, bewitching theories," Daniells himself
wrote an extensive series of articles on the church and its
organization for the Review and Herald. See A. G. Daniells to L. R.
Conradi, 18 January 1907, RG 11, LB 40, GCAr; A. G. Daniells,
 291

Principles of Reorganization: The Eschatoloeical-

Missiological Model

Organizational Starting Point

If Jones and his associates derived their principles of

organization more from their individualistic understanding of

soteriology and their ecclesiological emphasis, Daniells and his

associates derived their principles of organization more from their

evaluation of the pragmatic situation of the church.^ For Daniells,

the primary focus of that pragmatic situation was the scope of the

church's missionary task. Having just returned from extended periods

°f foreign missionary service, Daniells, Spicer, Ellen White, and

W. C. White were keenly aware of the inadequacy of the existing

"Organization: A Brief Account of Its History in the Development of

the Cause of the Third Angel's Message," 15-part series in RH, 31
January 1907, 5-6; 7 February 1907, 5-6; 14 February 1907, 5; 21
February 1907, 5-6; 28 February 1907, 6; 7 March 1907, 5-6; 14 March
1907, 5-6; 21 March 1907, 4-5; 28 March 1907, 5-6; 4 April 1907, 5-6;
11 April 1907, 5-6; 18 April 1907, 5-6; 25 April 1907, 4-6; 9 May
1907, 5; 16 May 1907, 4-5. Another antagonistic element that emerged
shortly after Winner's tract was a magazine which was initially called
Platform but after three issues was renamed The Platform and
^2ice. It was published irregularly between January 1908 and February
1910. The editorial policy of that magazine encouraged the
Publication of anonymous articles. It is not surprising, therefore,
that the articles themselves were particularly vitriolic in their
criticism of the organized church. At the same time they were most
conciliatory toward any diverse elements that were united by their
attacks against the church. In order to counter the attacks of the
¿latform people," Daniells suggested that a new volume of
Testimonies for the Church'" be published, and that it contain the
fundamental principles underlying organization." See C. C. Crisler
1:0 W. c. White, 27 June 1909, Incoming Files, EGWO-DC. Copies of
¿l^tform and Voice are located in EGWO-DC and SDAHC-AU.

Iwhile Jones largely ignored sociological formative factors,

Daniells's dominant emphasis was certainly not on ecclesiological
formative factors. Even so, it is not correct to say that Daniells
Was completely theologically unaware nor that Jones was totally
s°ciologically naive.
 292

administrative structure to cope with the contingencies of a global

missionary enterprise. Their focus, given their theological

presuppositions, was on the reorganization of the administrative

structures of the church so that they could be an instrument rather

than an inhibitor of mission.

Even though reorganization required that structural form be

changed so that it would better facilitate the mission of the church,

Daniells believed that the principles which were foundational to

organization and which had been espoused by the pioneers of the

Seventh-day Adventist Church when a denominational organization had

been formed in the early 1860s were still valid. Since global mission

had not even been a contributing factor to organization in the 1860s,

that which was needed in 1901 was not a revocation of the principles

that had been long established, but an adaptation which would render

the structures more relevant and useful for missionary purposes.^

The development of the missionary focus of the church in the

■*-At the 1903 General Conference session Daniells insisted that

"a careful study of the plan of reorganization, as worked out, will
show that it does not attack or set aside any of the vital features of
organization adopted by the pioneers of this message. It is a
consistent and harmonious adjustment of these features to meet the
necessities of a growing cause" (GC Bulletin. 1903, 18). Refuting
Jones in 1906, the statement was made, this time "very clearly," that
the call for reorganization in 1901 had not been "a call to abandon
the original purpose and general plan of organization adopted by the
pioneers of this cause." Rather the plan that had been adopted in the
1860s was adjusted and modified in 1901 "in harmony with the growth
and development of our cause" (General Conference Committee,
Statement. 19-20). See also Crisler, The Value of Organization. 4.
In 1901-1903 the church was not yet able to anticipate the
consequences of missionary success and the implications of its own
internationalization. Of course, the church did not really see any
need to anticipate too far into the future. After all, the
fundamental theological presupposition for structural reform was
eschatological.
 293

years since 1863 certainly did not diminish the need for structures.

Daniells contended, with reference to what he perceived as the

implications of Jones's ideas, that the principles which governed the

choice of organizational structures should be those which supported

the maintenance of the structures, not those which tended to destroy

them. In retrospect, he pointed out that the principles which guided

the church in its reorganization could not be permitted to lead the

church towards disorganization or the abandonment of those "general

principles" which in the 1860s had transformed a scattered group of

"believers" into a viable denomination.^

Unlike Jones, Daniells did not categorically state that one

principle in particular was foundational to all the others. Just as

the theological basis of reorganization was not as clearly enunciated

by Daniells as it was by Jones, organizational principles also were

not clearly stated at the time when the decisions were being made.

Daniells would later list the advantages of reorganization and

attempts would be made to systematize the theological rationale for

reorganization.^ At the time, however, despite repeated reference to

^A. G. Daniells, "A Statement of Facts Concerning Our Present

Situation--No. 9," RH, 5 April 19G6, 6.

^At the 1903 General Conference session Daniells made

reference to some of the "features" of the "work" which were the
result of reorganization. From what he said it may be deduced that he
discussed the implementation of principles such as fairness,
efficiency, localization, distribution of responsibility, unity, and
simplicity. Nowhere did he infer, however, that these "principles"
were presuppositional to the structure. Rather, they were regarded as
consequential--resulting from the implementation of the new structure.
SC Bulletin. 1903, 18. In contrast to Jones, who regarded his
Principles as foundational, Daniells most often spoke of the features
°f the organizational structure that had been adopted as advantages,
consequences, and principles which were consequential rather than

*
 294

"principles," no systematic treatment that could be used as a basis

for decision making appeared. Without a systematic ecclesiology,

there was really no basis upon which the church could formulate other

well-defined principles of organization.

However, if one principle was more important than any other

for those allied with Daniells in 1901, it was the principle of

decentralization. Daniells implied that such was the case at the 1903

General Conference session when he was explaining his understanding of

the sentence from Ellen White's 1896 letter that had been used by

Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott in an attempt to do away with the

presidency of the General Conference. Daniells explained that

according to his understanding, Ellen White was saying that the

leaders of the church needed to "decentralize responsibilities and

details and place them in the hands of a larger number of men."^ In

this sentence he was using the term "decentralize" in the sense of the

verb "to delegate." He understood Ellen White to be discussing the

need for responsibility to be delegated to several persons rather than

presuppositional to the structure. See GC Bulletin. 1901, 226-30; GC

Bulletin. 1903, 18; A. G. Daniells, "A Statement of Facts Concerning
Our Present Situation--No. 8," RH, 29 March 1906, 6-7; idem, "A
Statement of Facts Concerning Our Present Situation--No. 9," RH, 5
April 1906, 6-7; idem, "Some Beneficial Features of Our Organization,
R H . 14 March 1918, 6. In his article in the RH, 14 March 1918,
Daniells listed "some of the most vital and beneficial advantages
organization brings to the church." He said: (1) It establishes
order, (2) it secures and fosters unity and co-operation in endeavor,
(3) it strengthens for conquest, (4) it strengthens for defense, (5)
it aids every member in finding his place and doing his part, (6) it
develops ability and leads to the bearing of responsibilities, (7) it
recognizes and guards the rights and freedom of every member, and (8)
it is an outward manifestation of the inward union and harmony of the
body.

1Sten 1903, 9 April 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 75.

*
 295

being concentrated in just one person--the president of the General

Conference.

1901 and 1903: A Subtle Shift in Emphasis

In 1906, Daniells wanted it to be understood that the

principles of 1901 were the same principles which had always been the

basis of organizational structures in the church. One of the main

reasons for his insistence that such was the case was that the

turmoil of the years following 1901 had indeed resulted in some

changes in the emphasis that Daniells and his associates had placed on

certain principles. As Jones tended toward a more laissez faire

attitude toward church structures, Daniells tended towards a more

authoritarian stance. He felt that such an attitude was necessary in

order to keep the church unified. His shifting priorities were not

evidenced so much by an outright denial of any specific principle as

they were by a changing emphasis in the application of some of those

principles.

Daniells had never espoused the idealistic principles of Jones

and Waggoner. He had come from a different starting point altogether,

as has been pointed out above. However, he had been influenced by

them to some extent and, in 1901, had found himself using some of

their terminology to explain his own concepts, even though he had

followed a different route in order to arrive at them.

For a time after the 1901 General Conference session Daniells

Was quite comfortable with the alliance that existed between himself

and Jones's allies. The desire for organizational reform had brought

them together. The clash with Kellogg in mid-1902 quickly changed all
 296

that, however. From that point forward may be traced not so much a

change in the principles which Daniells espoused, but a change in the

relative place of those principles on his scale of values. He himself

admitted that he was a pragmatist, that he believed in practice, not

theory.^ The reaiities of conflict, therefore, made a profound impact

on his pragmatic sensitivities and led him to emphasize some of his

principles more as time went on, and, correspondingly, to de-emphasize

others. It must be stressed, however, that in Daniells's view, de­

emphasis in practice did not constitute a denial of the legitimacy of

the principle in theory.

Principles of Reorganization

Unity and Diversity

Reference has been made above to Ellen White's use of "unity

in diversity" and the metaphors that she associated with it. Taken

together, her references to unity and diversity formed a significant

theme in her writings, particularly during the 1890s when diversity

^With reference to the difficulties that had arisen in the

year before the 1903 General Conference session, Daniells said: "I
believe brethren, that we must look at conditions. We face
conditions, and not theories. We have to deal with what is before us,
and not altogether with an ideal condition or ideal situation. When
we get to heaven we wont [sic] be doing a great many things that we
are doing here. We will have very different conditions and we will be
in an ideal state, and we can live ideally then; but while we are here
in this world, and are facing conditions, we have to meet those
conditions in the best way possible to carry on the work God has given
us. . . . Somebody has to meet . . . problems and meet them right on
the spot. We cannot take our seats like a piece of putty, and keep
still the whole year. We have to deal with living problems" (Sten
1903, 9 April 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 70-72).

J
 297

was becoming more apparent due to the rapid growth of the church.^

During the 1890s both unity and diversity had negative and

positive aspects as far as the mission of the church was concerned.

Diversity was positive when it enhanced the potential of the church to

reach diverse "nations, tongues, and peoples," and led to

decentralization of decision-making prerogatives. It was negative

when it caused chaos and confusion, such as was the case with the

Multiplication of auxiliary organizations. Unity was positive when it

bound the church into oneness in Christ. It was negative when it was

interpreted to require uniformity and unnecessary centralization of

authority.

Given Ellen White's repeated references regarding the

necessity for both unity and diversity to be respected in the church

(an emphasis which appears to have been unique in Adventism to her),

and her close association with A. G. Daniells and W. C. White, it is

not surprising that in 1901 the principles of unity and diversity were

essential to the proposals that were made with respect to

reorganization of the denomination. The principle of unity was

Preeminent in the centralization of the auxiliary organizations as

Apartments under the General Conference executive committee.^ Unlike

^The increasing multi-ethnic membership of the church created

constituent diversity. The multiplication of auxiliary organizations
and institutions brought administrative diversity.

^Unity was necessary in order to encompass the dimensions of

Mission of the church. There was no way for the Seventh-day
Adventist Church with its emphasis on world-wide evangelization to
succeed in that task unless there was unity of purpose, belief, and
a°tion. Unity of action required administrative co-ordination that
^°uld best facilitate strategic initiatives on a global scale.
urther, the functional ecclesiological self-image that was
 298

the former auxiliary organizations, the departments had no executive

authority. The principle of diversity was preeminent in the

decentralization of decision-making prerogatives through the

establishment of an additional level of administration, and by

delegating some functions which had previously been performed by the

General Conference to union conferences.

The records of the 1901 General Conference session indicate

that there was very little discussion regarding the integration of the

auxiliary organizations into the conference structure of the

denomination. The emphasis was on the need to recognize diversity by

decentralization. Past growth had made the recognition of diversity

necessary, but projected future growth made provision for diversity

imperative.

The place of decentralization as

a principle of reorganization
in 1901

In 1901, Daniells and those who were sympathetic to his

viewpoints understood decentralization to be that organizational

principle which, more than any other, was the key to the successful

implementation of an organizational structure which would facilitate

the realization of the mission of the church. In 1902 the General

Conference committee minutes recorded Daniells as saying that "the

guiding principle [of reorganization] had been the decentralization of

authority by the distribution of responsibility." He added that the

characteristic of the church permitted a centralized administration

that could co-ordinate and facilitate the mission of the church. It
cannot be denied that, given the church's theological and pragmatic
priorities, some centralization was necessary and legitimate.
 299

application of that principle had led "to the organization of union

conferences," and representation "on all operating committees" of the

"four features of our work--the evangelical, medical, educational, and

Publishing interests."1

Daniells was insistent that the principle of decentralization

be carried into the work of the church. One of his favorite

expressions (one that he had taken from Ellen White), was that those

"on the ground" should bear the burden of administration and have the

Prerogative of decision making.^ He saw the implementation of the

union structure as the manner in which administrative responsibility

was being delegated to those "on the ground." The union

o
administrators were, for Daniells, those "on the ground."

8-GCC Minutes, 13 November 1902, 2:30 P.M., RG 1, GCAr.

2Ellen G. White to A. 0. Tait, 27 August 1896, Letter 100,

1896, EGWB-AU; A. G. Daniells to W. T. Knox, 21 May 1901, RG 11, LB
23, GCAr; A. G. Daniells to E. H. Gates, 23 May 1901, RG 11, LB 23,
OCAr; A. G. Daniells to Edith R. Graham, 24 May 1901, RG 11, LB 23,
GCAr; A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, 19 June 1901, RG 11, LB23, GCAr;
A. G. Daniells to Members of the General Conference Committee, 2
August 1901, RG 11, LB 24, GCAr; A. G. Daniells to W. T. Knox, 17
December 1901, RG 11, LB 25, GCAr. In 1895 Ellen White had used the
Phrase in a "testimony" to ministers. She said: "Be sure that God has
not laid upon those who remain away from these foreign fields of
labor, the burden of criticizing the ones on the ground where the work
is being done. Those who are not on the ground know nothingabout the
necessities of the situation, and if they cannot say anything to help
those who are on the ground, let them not hinder but show their wisdom
by the eloquence of silence, and attend to the work that is close at
hand. . . . Let the Lord work with the men who are on the ground, and
bet those who are not on the ground walk humbly with God lest they get
out of their place and lose their bearings" (Ellen G. White, Special
Ins truet i n n to Ministers and Workers [Battle Creek, Mich.. Review and
Herald, 1895], 33; reprinted in Ellen G. White, Series A [Payson
Ariz.: Leaves-Of-Autumn Books, 1976], 157).

3A. G. Daniells to H. W. Cottrell, 17 June 1901, RG 11, LB

23. GCAr.
 300

It is not the position of this study that the commitment of

the administration of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to the

principle of decentralization was ever revoked. It was not.

Decentralization continued to be considered as a vital principle which

governed the reorganization of the church. It is the contention of

this study, however, that the confrontation and polemics over

organizational issues that began in mid-1902 and continued for the

next seven years (until Jones was removed from church membership in

1909), caused a renewal of emphasis on the need for unity in the

church. That desire for unity on the part of the administration of

the church meant that the structures of the church became more an

instrument of the centralization of authority than they did an

instrument of delegation and decentralization of authority. Jones

claimed that just such a tendency was built into the very structures

themselves. Such was not necessarily the case, but circumstances

indeed confirmed that a changing emphasis toward one of the two basic

principles of reorganization could compromise the stated intent of

reorganization.

Concern for unity

When Daniells discussed the principles which were to govern

the reorganization of the church at the 1901 General Conference

session and described the benefits which would accrue from the

implementation of the union conference plan, he did not particularly

mention unity. Certainly Ellen White had done so in the College

Library Address and certainly the principle of unity had always been a

top priority for Seventh-day Adventists and would continue to be so,

 301

but for both Ellen White and A. G. Daniells the immediate priorities

were elsewhere. In his single, most significant explanation of the

operation of the Australasian Union Conference and its application to

the world church, Daniells discussed the simplification of machinery

for transacting business, the need to place laborers [administrators]

in the field in personal contact with the people, the advantage of

having general boards in the field, the necessity of having a general

organization which did not concern itself primarily with affairs in

the United States, the General Conference as a "world's General

Conference," and the necessity for the boards of institutions and the

committees of union conferences to be composed of persons familiar

with their geographical areas of administration. And he added,

The field is the world. I hope we will drop out of our vocabulary
the word "foreign" when we talk about missions. It is missionary
work. God occupies the center. All places are equally distant to
him— all places are equally near to him!^

But he did not even mention the need for unity.

At the second meeting of the General Conference session in

1903, however, Daniells did include unity among the list of advantages

and benefits that were realized by reorganization. Having pointed out

that reorganization had resulted in a distribution of responsibility

and that "work in all parts of the world" was to be dealt with by

those who were "on the ground," and that the "details" were to be

worked out" by them; he summarized: "in short, the plan recognizesl

lGC Bulletin. 1901, 228-29. Daniells's applications from the

Australasian Union to the world church are given in the order which he
discussed them.
 302

one message, one body of people, and one general organization.

By 1903 Daniells felt that it was important to stress the

oneness of the administrative structures. Decentralization was still

vital, but it was a decentralization which was carried out only along

prescribed lines. In some respects, particularly in the organization

of departments of the General Conference, there was more

centralization than decentralization. Apparently some sensed the

potential tendencies of such a course. With reference to the adoption

of the revised constitution, M. C. Wilcox observed:

We may pass all these resolutions, all these principles of

organization, and go on and do just the same as we have been doing
for the last twenty-five years. . . . If we will get this thing
deep down in our souls . . . we will not bind ourselves about with
red tape and feel that everything must go in just the same way.
There are different fields sometimes that demand different
organizations, and I hope that when that field comes, and when
that time comes, and that place comes, that God will have men that
will be willing to break the red tape, if necessary, and form the
organization in harmony with the field, and according to the
demands of the occasion.*
2

Ellen White also sensed the danger of placing inordinate

stress on the oneness of the organization. Her concern was that such

a position would result in the need to centralize authority so that

organizational uniformity could be maintained. Specifically with

reference to the publishing concerns of the church, she said:

No man's intelligence is to become such a controlling power that

one man will have kingly authority in Battle Creek or in any other

^-GC Bulletin. 1903, 17-21. The other points that Daniells

made at that time were that the reorganization was guided by fairness,
efficiency, localization, the distribution of responsibility, and
simplicity. He also pointed out that the plan was consistent with
that of the pioneers and that it allowed more workers to gain
administrative experience.

2Sten 1903, 9 April 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 20-20a.

 303

place. In no line of work is any one man to have power to turn

the wheel. God forbids.^

She was particularly outspoken regarding failure to implement

Principles that had been introduced in 1901. Writing to Judge Arthur

in January 1903, she maintained that as the delegates who had been in

attendance at the session returned to their homes, they carried with

them into "their work the wrong principles that had been prevailing in

the work at Battle Creek.

The context does not indicate exactly what "principles" were

being discussed. Although structural changes which she approved of

had been made in 1901, apparently the new structures could be abused

with the same result as the former structures. Thus Ellen White once

a&ain found it necessary to reprove the leaders of the church and its

Apartments because of the tendency to gather power about themselves.

Whenever the need to promote unity was prioritized to the extent that

^-t disrupted the maintenance of equilibrium between the principles of

unity and diversity, and diversity was not taken into consideration as

should have been, centralization was the result.

^ârticipati on or
^ E t e s e n t a M nn

Local conference participation

Daniells made a concerted effort to carry his emphasis on

diversity and decentralization not only into union conferences but1

2

1Ellen G. White, "Principles for the Guidance of Men in

0sitions of Responsibility," MS 140, 1902, EGWB-AU.

2Ellen G. White to Judge Jesse Arthur, 14 January 1903, Letter

17 ■ 1903, EGWB-AU.
 304

also into the local conference setting. Soon after the 1901 General

Conference session, he began to promote broad-based participation in

the decision-making process by encouraging the state conferences to

permit all state church members to participate at their respective

state sessions as delegates. Daniells's innovation in this respect

was a departure from the system of permitting only duly appointed

delegates to vote at the session.^

^•The reorganization of 1901 had reaffirmed the Seventh-day

Adventist commitment to a representative style of church government.
Despite J. H. Waggoner's assertion in 1885 that the church had adopted
a congregational style of government, the mainstream had recognized
that theirs was a style of governance that, combined elements of
Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, and even Episcopal forms.
They coined the term "representative" to describe it. Writing one
hundred years after the initial organization, it was stated that "one
of the important decisions of this conference [1863 General
Conference] was the establishing of the principle of representative
government through approved delegates" (L. L. Moffitt, "The General
Conference," RH, 1 March 1962, 9). However, it does not appear that
the term "representative" was widely used as a designation for the
form of government until the time of reorganization in 1901-1903. See
Mustard, "James White and Organization," 232-62. In July 1901, J. N.
Loughborough wrote an article in which he pointed out that the church
governed not only by means of representation but by "proportional
representation." At the first General Conference session, however,
such had not been the case. Although representatives were present
from "Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, and Ohio, . . .
Michigan had more members present than all the rest of the States, and
the Battle Creek church, and two or three adjoining churches, had more
members present than all the rest of the churches in the State."
Apparently when the constitution was voted, however, "a numerical
basis for delegate representation in the Conferences and in the
General Conference" was provided for. Loughborough assured his
readers that "the sweet blessing of God, sensibly present, seemed to
indorse the movement made" (J. N. Loughborough, "The Church: Numerical
Representation and Committees," RH, 16 July 1901, 452). Daniells must
not have read Loughborough's article in the RH. If he did, he decided
to disregard it because he had embarked on a different course
altogether. In fact, Loughborough's article may well have been
written to counter what had been done at the Wisconsin, Ontario, and
other conference sessions that Daniells visited in June and July 1901.
See A. G. Daniells to I. J. Hankins, 18 June 1901, RG11, LB 23, GCAr;
A. G. Daniells to W. W. Prescott, 24 June 1901, RG 11, LB 23, GCAr; A.
G. Daniells to 0. A. Olsen and L. R. Conradi, 1 July 1901, RG 11, LB
 305

Daniells's idea of representation was that any and every

person who was in attendance at a local conference session and a

member in that conference should be a delegate to the session. He

strongly advocated a participatory election process for local

conferences at most of the local conference sessions that he attended

in 1901, at the Lake Union Conference session (of which he was

president), and at the European Union Conference in 1902. In Europe

he stated his concept as a principle. He said:

As to representation, nobody can represent anybody except

himself. All should be the Lord's representatives; but nobody can
represent some other person, or a church. A church is "fully
represented" in a Conference when all its members are present; but
nobody can delegate his mind or his conscience to another. If a
person is present at any meeting, he does not want somebody else
to speak for him.l

It was further reported that while he did not presume "to dictate to

Any how they should do, he gave it as his conviction that just as in

any church meeting all the members present are entitled to speak, so*
4

24, GCAr; A. G. Daniells to N. P. Nelson, 17 July 1901, RG 11, LB 24,

OCAr. In another letter to W. W. Prescott on 21 July of the same
year, Daniells said to Prescott, "You will be somewhat amused to hear
that all the brethren present at the council [Lake Union session] were
decidedly in favor of abolishing the old plan of electing delegates to
the State Conferences, and substituting the plan of making every
church-member present at any regular session of the Conference a
member of the Conference in session for the transaction of business.
4 resolution recommending the States to make this change was passed
without a dissenting voice" (A. G. Daniells to W. W. Prescott, 21 July
1901, RG 11, LB 24, GCAr). See also A. G. Daniells to J . W. Collie,
10 April 1902, RG 11, LB 26, GCAr.

1European Conference Bulletin. 2. In 1909, A. T. Jones

referred to Daniells’s statement at the European Union Conference and
indicated that it was in harmony with his own concept of self-
government. He said of it: "It is a splendid statement of a
fundamental Christian principle. . . . And that is the truth. It is
the principle of 1901. And in the presence of that principle the
Present system of 1903 can not stand for a moment" (Jones, An Appeal.
46) .
 306

in any Conference all the members present are properly delegates." He

added that his plan had "been adopted in quite a number of Conferences

in America. "■*■

Danlells was questioned at length concerning his proposal.

Apparently quite a few of the delegates had read Loughborough's

article, or were familiar with the early history of the development of

the organizational structure of the church and saw pragmatic

difficulties with the plan. They were concerned that such a plan

could give one district an undue proportional influence and control.

Daniells rebuffed such a suggestion on the basis that all were

Christians; the implication being that no one member or group of

members would exercise arbitrary or political power over others.

Daniells countered even further. Given his commitment to mission, he

assured the delegates that the principle of numerical representation

could not be a satisfactory principle because if it were strictly

followed from the local conferences right through to the General

Conference, it "would leave the heathen lands wholly unprovided for,

and was thus opposed to missionary effort." Each member was to

"consider himself as representative of the world, and not merely of

his particular locality."*

2 He was somewhat inconsistent in his

reasoning, however. He was not promoting participatory representation

as a principle to be adopted at all levels of church administration.

He was only concerned for its adaptation to local conference

governance, and, to some extent, to union conferences. At General

^European Conference Bulletin. 2.

2Ibid., 2-3.
 307

Conference level, Daniells's ideas of representation, especially with

reference to overseas fields, were not at all participatory, nor were

they even particularly representative.

Union conference representation

At the union level of administration, the concept of

representation changed from broad-based participation by the people to

Unilateral representation of the departments and the institutions in

the union. The same situation applied at the General Conference. In

1901 Daniells allowed the proposal that the executive committee elect

its own chairman because he, along with W. C. White, considered the

committee to be a "thoroughly representative one."i But the committee

Selected in 1901 comprised representatives of departments and

institutions, with only the union presidents as representatives of

the people" who were supposed to be the authority base in the church.

The union presidents were outnumbered seventeen to eight and could

Very easily be outvoted. Further, as chairmen or executive board

roembers of the institutions within their own unions, union presidents

Wete more often focused on institutional concerns than on the concerns

the local churches and the church members. They were, therefore,

Bore likely to be sympathetic to institutional problems and needs than

*-° the needs and concerns of the church at large. The composition of

the committee inevitably led to a focus on institutional concerns. In

this respect Seventh-day Adventist mission methodology was in accord

with that of most mission agencies which depended to a large degree on

XGC Bulletin. 1901, 206.

 308

the establishment of institutions.

International representation

The situation with regard to representation of the world-wide

constituency of the church was even more troublesome. As the

composition of the General Conference executive committee was being

discussed in 1901, G. G. Rupert asked if there was any provision for

the "different nationalities among us" being represented on the

committee. Prescott answered him by quoting Gal 3:28 and assuring the

delegates that such was not necessary because "ye are all one in

Christ Jesus." Rupert was not at all satisfied with that reply. He

tried to raise the subject again, but Daniells, the chairman of the

meeting, ignored him and passed over to the next recommendation. A

few minutes later, J. W. Westphal raised the issue again. In

reference to Rupert's question he observed that while it was true that

all were one in Christ, and while the committee was to represent

different institutions and departments of the work, he was convinced

"that an American or an Englishman who is laboring among the Germans

or the Scandinavians can not represent the German or the Scandinavian

work, and plan with reference to it as he could if he had someone

there" who understood the language. At that stage E. J. Waggoner, who

had his own agenda of concerns that needed airing, had become

frustrated by such an unnecessary diversion. He adroitly dismissed

the question by stating that if the session was to include a

representative of every language on the committee, the committee would

 309

be "several times twenty-five"; much too large to be practical.^

The outcome was that the safest course was chosen--only North

Americans were elected to the executive committee. The irony of the

situation was that the question that was asked by Rupert was probably

asked with reference to Northern European migrants in North America,

and not to the possibility of the representation of those who were not

living in North America or who were not indigenous to North America.

The possibility of having indigenous representatives from outside

North America on the executive committee or the impact of cultural

diversity on the form of organization adopted by the church was not

even mentioned. It just was not an issue for the delegates at that

^GC Bulletin. 1901, 187-188. Analysis of the delegate

composition at the 1901 General Conference session indicates that
there were 234 delegates listed for the session. The SPA Encyclopedia
gives 268 delegates. The reason for the discrepancy appears to be that
the compilers of the SPA Encyclopedia included as additional delegates
Persons listed in a supplementary list of delegates who were not
Present when the roll was called at the first meeting of the session.
In actual fact, those persons had already been listed in the full list
°f delegates and delegates at large. SPA Encyclopedia. 1976 ed., s.v.
"General Conference Session"; GC Bulletin. 1901, 18-19. Of the
general delegates listed, all held ministerial credentials or a
ministerial licence except four. Those four were W. F. Surber, a
colporter; James Cochran, also in the publishing work; W. R. Simmons,
a doctor who was in church employment; and Ida M. Walters, a secretary
and the only general delegate who was a woman. There were just a few
other delegates who held ministerial credentials or licenses but who
w®re medical practitioners. All general delegates and all delegates
at large were denominational employees. There were no laypersons. Of
twenty-four delegates who represented or had come from conferences
outside North America, only three, J. C. Ottsen, G. W. Schubert, and
Paul Roth (all from Northern Europe) did not consider themselves to be
North Americans. Of the 234 delegates listed to attend, only 216
actually attended and took part in the deliberations. See Seventh-dav
Adventist Year Book for 1894. 11-138; The General Conference Bulletin:
Ihird Quarter 1901 (Battle Creek, Mich.: The Seventh-day Adventist
General Conference, 1901), 520-58; The General Conference Bulletin:
Ibird Quarter 1902. 602-647; GC Bulletin 1901, 18-19; A. G. Paniells
to E. R. Palmer, 3 May 1901, RG 9, A. G. Paniells Folder 6, GCAr.
 310

session--the session which largely decided the structure which the

church was to adopt to accommodate its global expansion and facilitate

its world-wide mission.

But that is not to say that there was no commitment to the

principle of representation. Representation was understood as being

compatible with the higher principle of decentralization. The church

and its members were very much in the mind of Daniells both at the

General Conference session in 1901 and in the year that followed.

Though he was conscious "more and more" of the "influence and power"

that the General Conference had, he was anxious to use that power

"rightly" and get into "sympathetic touch" with the "rank and file" of

the church constituency. He censured conference officers for failing

to consult their constituencies when decisions of importance were to

be made. In 1901 he wanted administration and government in the

Seventh-day Adventist Church to be "of the people, by the people, and

for the people."^

^A. G. Daniells to E. A. Sutherland, 20 December 1901, RG 11,

LB 25, GCAr; A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, 18 June 1901, Incoming
Files, EGWO-DC; A. G. Daniells to N. P. Nelson, 17 July 1901, RG 11,
LB 24, GCAr. W. C. White agreed with Daniells's emphasis on the
priority of the people. On 2 September 1902 he wrote to Daniells with
reference to the Michigan Conference session that had just been
conducted: "I think, Brother Daniells, that the time has passed when
you and I and some other of our brethren who have had clear light and
wise counsel regarding the general management of our work, should be
satisfied to leave matters with the committee. I think the time has
come for us to speak plainly to the people, and when we speak the
truth to the people, and the Lord begins to move their hearts, He will
raise up men and develop plans which he will vindicate, but which
could not be operated when the light and counsel is all confined toa
few committeemen" (W. C. White to A. G. Daniells, 2 September 1901, LB
17, EGWO-DC).
 311

Consensus decision making

Along with his regard for the prerogatives of the members of

the church and his desire to implement a participatory decision making

process at local conference level, Daniells advocated decision making

by consensus in 1901 and 1902, rather than by majority vote. In

contrast to his concept of participation which was promoted only on

the state conference level, he advocated consensus decision making at

every level of administration. Daniells told E. R. Palmer, his

associate and confidante in Australia, that at the 1901 General

Conference session no measure "received unkind treatment." Some of

the proposals advanced were "amended" and a few "dropped out," but it

had all been done by "common consent," not by "majority vote."

Daniells declared that he had never seen "anything like it."X

At the European Union Conference in May 1902, Daniells

endeavored to impress upon the delegates the value of his practice of

encouraging consensus decision making. The record of the conference

tecounts that

he stated that all church business ought to be by unanimous

consent. Nothing ought to be carried by majority vote, and he had
not, in the meetings over which he presided, been in the habit of
calling for the opposition vote to any measure. Principles, not
members, ought to rule in the work of God, and measures ought to
prevail only as their inherited righteousness recommends them to
the good sense and conscience of all sincere believers.^

One may wonder just what Daniells had in mind when he

XA. G. Daniells to E. R. Palmer, 3 May 1901, RG 9, A. G.

Daniells Folder 6, GCAr.
O
European Conference Bulletin. 3.
 3X2

advocated the concept of consensus decision making.^ Whatever was the

case, his attitude changed rapidly, again as a consequence of the

confrontation with Kellogg, so that, by the General Conference Session

of 1903, vital decisions were being made on the strength of majority

o
vote.

Daniells had also seen the demise of his concept of

participatory representation at local conference constituency sessions

by the 1903 General Conference session. A few weeks before the

session had commenced, he had received some advice from his friend E.

R. Palmer. Palmer had written:

At various times when you and others have mentioned and advocated
the policy of considering all members present at any meeting as
delegates for the transaction of business I have felt serious
apprehensions concerning it which I can hardly explain and which I

ljust before his death in 1932, R. A. Underwood made some

terse observations with regard to James White's concept of consensus
decision making. He said: "Elder James White was what men would call
a shrewd leader--He understood the effect of being united--and one of
his diplomatic moves was this in all the questions that secured a
majority vote in the General Conference or district or otherwise
whatever carried by a majority of even a few votes--he got the
delegates to agree that it should be reported unanimous --and no
opposition was referred to in the report" (R. A. Underwood to L. E.
Froom, 8 December 1930, RG 58, 1920s-1930s Interpretation Development
of Folder, GCAr). Underwood's punctuation was not precise and his
memory was not acute--districts were not introduced into the
administrative structure until eight years after the death of James
White. However, one wonders how much correlation there was between
the practice of White (as recalled by Underwood) to seek unanimity for
the sake of the report, and that of Daniells who was not in the "habit
of calling for the opposition vote to any measure" (European
Conference Bulletin. 3).

^In the reply to Jones in 1906, it was pointed out that the
decision to adopt the new constitution at the 1903 General Conference
session was made by majority vote. In fact, all the decisions made at
the General Conference session in 1903 were adopted by majority vote.
By that time majority vote was the method being consistently followed,
despite Daniells stated desire to the contrary less than one year
earlier. See General Conference Committee, Statement. 28.
 313

will not try to defend logically. Like many of the splendid

principles of Socialism, 1 believe it is better for the next world
than for this.^

Palmer was concerned that "scheming men" would take full

advantage of the situation and would feel "free to 'pack' a conference

and revolutionize the whole thing in harmony with personal aims and

ambitions." Some years later, Ellen White added her weight to those

who did not think the idea judicious. When it was proposed that all

the members attending be delegates at one of the campmeetings in the

Southern California Conference in 1906, she directed that it ought not

to be so because it opened the door to "perplexity and confusion."^

The church had some adjustments to make in the years

immediately after 1901. Some of the plans that were made and the

methods that were followed were not wise. Daniells himself admitted

that. However, the shift from emphasis on participatory

representation and consensus decision making to emphasis on more

structured representation and majority-vote decision making after the

clash with Kellogg and the extended polemics with those opposed to the

church structure was indicative of a shift from emphasis on the need

for diversity (or decentralization) to emphasis on preservation of

unity.

3-E. R. Palmer to A. G. Daniells, 21 January 1903, RG 11,

1903-P Folder, GCAr.

^Ibid; Ellen G. White, "Counsel to Conference Presidents," MS

35, 1907, EGWO-DC.
 314

Authority as a Principle
of Reorganization

In 1901 Daniells intended that the General Conference

executive committee should be advisory, not executive. Referring to

the plan of organizing unions, he hoped that the General Conference

and the Mission Board (which had been integrated into the General

Conference executive committee), would be "ultimately . . . quite free

from perplexing details." He was convinced that the new plan of

organization would enable the committees "to take the position of

general advisory b o a r d s . T w o weeks later he wrote to the members of

the General Conference Committee:

We are glad that the details in the various Union Conferences are
being so fully taken over by those who are on the ground. . . .
Our hope is that we shall be left almost entirely free to study
the large questions of policy affecting the entire field, and to
devote our energies to fostering the work in the weak parts of the
field, and also the great mission fields in the regions beyond.
Thus the general machinery is being reduced to a few simple
parts.^

Some were concerned, even so, that too much power was being

centralized in the hands of one board. They may have been beginning

to question the wisdom of forming departments in the General

Conference to replace the auxiliary organizations. Apparently in

response, Daniells wrote to Edith Graham, the treasurer of the

Australasian Union, that the General Conference executive committee

could not possibly be guilty of centralizing because the facts of the

matter were that the authority to act was being placed in the hands of

^A. G. Daniells to J. J. Wessells, 15 July 1901, RG 11, LB

24, GCAr.

^A. G. Daniells to Members of the General Conference

Committee, 2 August 1901, RG 11, LB 24, GCAr.
 315

"those on the ground." Daniells continued:

The General Conference Committee does not propose to deal directly

with the affairs in any Union Conference. We propose to interest
ourselves in the welfare of every Union Conference, in every line
of work. . . . So instead of centralizing our work, we have been
distributing it.^

Daniells's answer to the centralization of power in the

General Conference committee was that the committee was not going to

make executive decisions. It was going to be a fostering, advisory,

board whose interest was co-ordination, not supervision. With Ellen

White's advice in mind, no doubt, Daniells was concerned that the

General Conference committee should not exercise executive control,

but that it should do everything in its power to co-ordinate the

administrative functions of the church so as to respect that authority

resident in the church membership. With the reforms that were

suggested and implemented and with the movement away from

centralization of authority, Daniells hailed the events of 1901 as the

"beginning of a new era," the beginning of "our last grand march."*

2

By 1903 Daniells was speaking as though he still held the

"advisory" concept of the role of the General Conference executive

committee. But he was not speaking with the same certainty. At the

General Conference session he stated: "As the work is now shaping, the

province of the General Conference Committee is of an advisory

character to a large extent--not altogether, by any means--and it is

■'■A. G. Daniells to Edith R. Graham, 24 May 1901, RG 11, LB

23, GCAr.

2A. G. Daniells to E. H. Gates, 23 May 1901, RG 11, LB 23,

GCAr; A. G. Daniells to M. H. Brown, 17 June 1901, RG 11, LB 23,
GCAr.
 316

of a missionary character or p h a s e . N o longer was the role of the

General Conference executive committee merely advisory. A change of

attitude had taken place. Notice, however, that no change had taken

place with regard to the priority of mission. Any changes in the role

of the General Conference executive committee with respect to

coordination as set over against control were being made with

reference to the missionary focus of the committee and the church.

Those allied with Jones certainly pointed out the discrepancy

between what had been espoused in 1901 and what, in fact, was the

situation in 1903. E. A Sutherland, who was one of those aligned with

Jones's position at that stage, pointed out that the plan in 1901 had

been "that the General Conference Committee should be advisory, and

not executive." He had no hesitation in pointing out, however, that

"the plan that was laid for carrying on the General Conference work"

had "not been fully carried out.*

2

XGC Bulletin. 1903, 100.

2Sten 1903, 9 April 1903, RG 0, GCAr, 108-110. Those allied

with Jones had their own theological and theoretical perspectives from
which they were assessing the situation. It has already been pointed
out above that those perspectives were unbalanced. For Daniells
himself to admit, however, that the situation was not quite the same
as it had been in 1901 is indicative of a change in emphasis taking
place regarding the executive authority and power of the General
Conference executive committee. C. H. Parsons even had to encourage
Daniells before the 1903 General Conference session to ensure that
"all feelings that pre-arranged plans had been made by the Committee
for the action of the Conference" be taken away. Strict integrity
was needed in dealing with the people. C. H. Parsons to A. G.
Daniells, 4 March 1903, RG 11, 1903-P Folder, GCAr; C. H. Parsons to
A. G. Daniells, 6 January 1903, RG 11, 1903-P Folder, GCAr. In his
letter of 6 January 1903, Parsons concurred with Daniells's earlier
view regarding the authority of the General Conference. He stated
that "as the unopened and new fields are organized and become self-
sustaining and self-managing, the amount of territory to be governed
by the operations of the general work will constantly grow smaller
 317

The delimitations of this dissertation prevent an extended

treatment of developments beyond 1903. Such treatment should be the

work of others who are willing to take up the task of examining

organizational developments during the time of division organization

in 1913-1918, and beyond. However, it should be mentioned that by

1909 at least one conference president was already upholding the

authority of the General Conference by referring to the General

Conference as the "highest authority God has upon the earth and

insisting that "to criticize and sleight the plans and counsel

General Conference is to reject the leading of the voice of God upon

the earth."*
1 While in 1901 the authority of the General Conference

was respected, references to it being the "highest authority" and the

"voice of God on earth were very few. In 1901 insistence

«erhal ized to the same
authority of the General Conference was no
2
extent that it was later in the decade and thereafter.

until the end comes and the Gospel of the Kingdom ^ ®ole Qf the
all the nations of the earth." He did not conceive • > £ * . £ ^
General Conference in terms of supervision. >
General Conference was working towards obsolescence.

1C . McReynolds to A. G. Danielle. 19 February 1909. RG 11.

1909-M Folder, GCAr.

^Francis Wernick has somewhat astutely ma^®e£al Conference as

Daniells's 1901-1902 concept of the role of t h j > ^ observed_
an impartial, advisory, fostering board. , . role from a
however, that the General Conference has ®nlarg isory role."
coordinating, counselling body to "more ° * of the General
Wernick advised that "we need to rethin office to preserve
Conference." He added: "We do need a central Supervision
unity, to give coordination, and to give c°u"®t.nilion.. (Francis W.
versus coordination needs further study ^ Conference" [paper
Wernick, "Philosophy of the Role of th function of denominational
Prepared for the committee on the role an rCArl Note
organizations, 1984], RG 500, Monographs Serl® ’ the list of
Wernick's agenda. The preservation of unity heads the
 318

Simplicity and Adaptability as

Principles of Reorganization

There are two other principles of reorganization which should

be discussed. They are the principles of simplicity and adaptability.

In yiew of the complication and confusion that had characterized

denominational administration in the 1890s, reorganization was

perceived as a simplification of the organizational system. In the

1890s Ellen White had advocated simplicity in organization and

insisted that the machinery was not to be "a galling yoke."-*-

Therefore, when reorganization was being considered in 1901,

simplicity was understood to be an essential principle. The

principles of representation and distribution of authority were

related to the principle of decentralization. So also was the

principle of simplicity.^

Daniells expressed himself most succinctly on the need for

simplicity at the European Union Conference session in 1902. He said:

Organization should be as simple as possible. The nearer we get to

the end, the simpler will be the organization. I have no idea that we*

concerns. It has been that way ever since the mid-1902 crisis.

*-GC Bulletin. 1893, 22-24; Ellen G. White, "Overbearing

Control Reproved," MS 43, 1895, EGWB-AU.

**In early 1902 Daniells said: "I believe that we have thrown
away a great amount of money and energy in trying to keep useless
machinery running. I find that the less complex we make our work, and
the more we center our efforts on the simple straight lines of
missionary evangelization, the heartier is the response of the people,
and the greater is the manifestation of life in the enterprise" (A. G.
Daniells to C. H. Jones, 21 April 1902, Incoming Files, EGWO-DC).
See also A. G. Daniells to Members of the General Conference
Committee, 2 August 1901, RG 11, LB 24, GCAr.
 319

have got to the limit of simplicity.^

In 1903 simplicity was still described as a desirable

principle of reorganization. In his "Chairman's Address" Daniells

used the integration of the auxiliary organizations into General

Conference departments as an example of the application of the

principle of simplification.^ However, it was admitted that in some

regards, the machinery was still too complicated. Simplicity was

proving to be an elusive quality in organization and it was to remain

so. Especially was that to continue to be the case in those parts of

the world where the administrative machinery that may have been

necessary in North America or Europe was just "too complicated."

The principle of adaptability was, in 1901, almost too obvious

to need extended treatment. The very fact that the church was willing

to enter into a process of radical reorganization is sufficient to

indicate that priority was given to adaptability in organizational

structures. Further adaptations in 1903 indicate that the commitment

to adaptability remained. In 1902, in addition to his remarks at the

European Union conference regarding simplicity, Daniells insisted:

We see many things differently from what we did ten years ago, and*
•

^European Conference Bulletin. 2.

2GC Bulletin. 1903, 18.

•*At the 1903 General Conference session Daniells quoted Ellen

White with reference to the simplification of machinery. He noted that
she had declared that in "'some parts of the work it is true, the
Machinery has been made too complicated'" (Sten 1903, 9 April 1903, RG
°* GCAr, 75b). Even in 1909 Ellen White found it necessary to stress
that "simple organization and church order" were set forth in the New
Testament and that the Lord had ordained such for "the unity and
Perfection of the church" (Ellen G. White to the Leading Ministers in
Galifornia, 6 December 1909, Letter 178, 1909, EGWB-AU).
 320

I expect that we shall see still more. As new light comes, we

ought to advance with it, and not hold rigidly to old forms and
old methods. Because a thing is done a certain way in one place
is not reason why it should be done in the same way in another
place, or even in the same place at the same time.

Attention has been given above to Ellen White's attitude to

the possibility of subsequent structural change. Apart from Ellen

White, W. A. Spicer was probably the most vocal advocate of the

importance of allowing adaptability in the form that organization took

in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It was Spicer, an experienced

missionary, who was responsible as much as anyone for the success of

the missionary enterprlze of the church in the early years of the

twentieth century. With his wide exposure to different cultures and

situations, he repeatedly said:

The details of organization may vary according to conditions

and work, but ever as God has called his church together there has
appeared in it the spiritual gift of order and of government, the
spirit that rules in heaven.^ (Emphasis supplied.)

Conclusion

The principles of reorganization of the administrative

structure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are to be understood in

the context of the need for the church to address the inadequacy of

its existing administrative structure to accommodate and facilitate

-'-European Conference Bulletin. 2.

^W. A. Spicer, "The Divine Principle of Organization," RH, 25

March 1909, 5. See also, idem, "The Divine Principle of
Organization," RH, 27 July 1916, 4; idem, "The Second Advent Movement:
An Organized Movement," RH, 24 April 1930, 6; Sten 1903, 9 April 1903,
RG 0, GCAr, 75b. Even as early as 1888 0. A. Olsen had been prepared
to grant that "as the work develops, things may take a different shape
and form" (0. A. Olsen to W. C. White, 20 December 1888, RG 11, LB
1/2, GCAr).
 321

its missionary mandate. The principles by which the organization was

restructured were clarified in the interaction between those who were

allied with A. T. Jones and those who were allied with A. G. Daniells.

Jones and his allies derived their principles of organization

from their christocentric-soteriological emphasis. Self-government

was their first principle. To the primacy of the principle of self-

government were subordinated other principles of reorganization:

distributed authority and mutual rule, independence, individuality,

and self-support. The principles which they espoused, if accepted by

the church without modification or adaptation, would have required the

church to adopt a structure which would have been more congregational

than representative.
The principles espoused by A. G. Daniells and his allies arose

from their eschatological-missiological presuppositions and their

awareness of the pragmatic situation of the church. Based on their

Presuppositions and confidence in their pragmatic sensitivities with

regard to organization--the result of the success of their initiatives

fn Australia--their first principle of reorganization was

decentralization. In actual fact, the term "decentralization” was

Used to refer to diversification and delegation of decision-making

Prerogative. Despite their commitment to diversification, the need

f°r coordination and control of a global missionary enterprize

remained and, in 1901, determined that the auxiliary organizations be

centralized under General Conference control. Both unity

(centralization) and diversity (decentralization) were vital

Principles of reorganization, although the records indicate that the

 322

leaders of the denomination spoke more of the need for

decentralization, and not at all of centralization.

Other principles of reorganization were representation, broad-

based authority, simplicity, and adaptability. In each case the

implementation of the principle was viewed differently in 1901 than it

was by 1903, particularly by A. G. Daniells. In 1901 and 1902

Daniells's stated emphasis had been on diversity rather than unity,

participation rather than representation, advisory co-ordination

rather than executive authority, simplicity rather than complexity,

and adaptability rather than rigidity. However, the clash with

Kellogg and the polemical confrontation which followed tended to shape

the administration's attitudes to the extent that many of the

principles that had been of first importance in 1901 were later de-

emphasized in practice. In fact, after 1902 Ellen White was compelled

to again address many of the abuses with respect to centralization and

administration that she had continuously addressed during the 1890s.

The form of organization adopted by the church in 1901-1903

was that which was needed to meet the contingencies of time and place

faced by the church as it contemplated the prospect of world

evangelization in the new century. Even though Ellen White herself

had indicated just eight years previous to reorganization that the

organization of the church was settled, no-one was more insistent of

the need for change in 1901 than she. Apparently neither Ellen White,

A. G. Daniells, W. A. Spicer, nor any of the other more influential

leaders in the denomination, intended at the time that the form should

be inflexible.
 CHAPTER VI

IMPLICATIONS FOR AN INTERNATIONAL CHURCH

Introduction

The global mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has

created an international community. Figures cited in the first

chapter of this study reveal that since reorganization the

internationalization of the church has proceeded unchecked. By the

end of 1987, approximately 88 percent of the members of the church

were indigenous to countries other than North America. That figure

should be compared to approximately 17 percent at the end of 1900. At

the beginning of 1988, 82 percent of church members were indigenous to

socio-cultural communities very different from the Euro-American

socio-cultural community. That is to be compared to only 4 percent at

the beginning of 1901. Projections of growth indicate that, unless

present growth patterns change radically, the proportion of Seventh-

day Adventists indigenous to communities which are not Euro-American

will be well over 90 percent by the turn of the century.^

^Seventh-day Adventists are not unique in respect to rapid

growth. Many Christian denominations and societies which are
actively engaged in aggressive evangelization and cross-cultural
missionary activity are also experiencing similar patterns of growth--
in some cases even faster growth. Seventh-day Adventists are somewhat
unique, however, in respect to the high proportion of their membership
which is indigenous to non-Western societies and cultures. Comparison
between denominations can be made by reference to a comprehensive
resource for the assessment of the status of Christianity in the

323
 324

In view of its internationalization, the church should

continuously evaluate the adequacy of its structures to fulfil its

missionary mandate. It should ask itself whether an international

Seventh-day Adventist Church can be adequately served and its mission

facilitated, by structures which were conceived largely by persons

from one particular socio-cultural community, unless the possibility

world: David B. Barrett, ed., World Christian Encyclopedia (Nairobi:

Oxford University Press, 1982). Barrett annually updates his
assessment of broad trends in the January edition of International
Bulletin of Missionary Research. Studies of the impact that the
changing face of Christianity is having on the Christian church--its
theology, its structures, and its mission--have proliferated,
particularly in the last twenty years. For example, see Peter
Beyerhaus and Henry Lefever, The Responsible Church and the Foreign
Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964); 0. E. Costas, The Church and
Its Mission: A Shattering Critique from the Third World (Wheaton:
Tyndale Press, 1974); Kosuke Koyama, Waterbuffalo Theology
(Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1974; I. Walbert Buhlmann, The Coming
of the Third Church (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1977); Robert E.
Firth, ed., Servants for Christ: The Adventist Church Facing the 80's
(Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1980); C. Peter
Wagner, On the Crest of the Wave: Becoming a World Christian (Ventura,
Calif.: Regal Books, 1983); Bong Rin Ro and Ruth Eshenaur, eds., The
Bible and Theology in Asian Contexts (Taichung, Taiwan: Asia
Theological Association, 1984); Masao Takenaka, God is Rice: Asian
Culture and Christian Faith (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1986);
Lesslie Newbigen, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western
Culture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986); Bong Rin Ro, "Theological
Trends in Asia: Asian Theology," World Evangelization 15 (March-April
1988): 16-17, 25. Since this study is particularly concerned with the
formative principles of structure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
and their implications for the internationalization of the church,
cognizance has been taken of the studies conducted with reference to
other denominations, but application of the principles has been made
to the unique situation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. That is
not to say that the Seventh-day Adventist Church cannot learn from,
and contribute to, the ongoing discussion regarding missionary theory
and methodology in the Christian Church at large. For a church which
is organized around the principle of mission, Seventh-day Adventists
have remained too aloof from the Christian missionary community, and
consequently, have not been able to give and to gain in the
interaction that could have resulted if they had participated more
fully.
 325

of constant revision and modification is allowed.^ Are organizational

structures in the Seventh-day Adventist Church flexible and,

therefore, adaptable to the needs of its changing constituency? If

^■It has been pointed out above that there were only three
delegates at the 1901 General Conference session who did not consider
themselves North Americans. Those three were from northern Europe--a
culturally similar environment to North America. Further, all
delegates were church employees. There was no lay representation
whatsoever. Erich Baumgartner has suggested that there are two
immediate implications which arise from these facts. First, with
reference to the employment of the delegates, Baumgartner has said
that "the 1901 reorganization was heavily oriented towards the
ordained minister and those responsible to lead the work." He
contended, in contrast, that "our time has seen new moves to recognize
the ministry and mission of the laity"; his implication being that
structures should now reflect that change. Second, with reference to
the socio-cultural background of the delegates, Baumgartner asked: "I
wonder what wider representation would mean today in a church that has
become a predominantly international church. Maybe it is time again
to listen to the prophetic voices who call for the end of kingly power
encapsulated this time in a cultural, racial group which has a hard
time giving up the grip of control." Baumgartner, "Church Growth and
Church Structure," 68-69. Not only was the uni-cultural delegate
composition a potential source of distortion when it came to the
applicability of a structure for a world-wide organization but such
distortion was most likely emphasized even more by strongly
ethnocentric viewpoints on the part of the delegates, the colonial
context, and their belief in the manifest destiny of the United
States. Some experienced missionaries did recognize the problem. At
the 1901 General Conference session, W. A. Spicer said: "The thought
of Americanism, of nationalism, is something to reckon with. I am an
American. I am not ashamed of it; but I am not proud of it; and that
makes all the difference in the world in being able to help people
outside of America; for you take any man who is proud of the fact that
he is an American, and he has erected a barrier between himself and
every soul who is not an American. Anybody who has been in a foreign
field has known this fact. . . . You will find this spirit of
nationalism in all lands” (GC Bulletin. 1901, 154-55). While Spicer
is to be commended for recognizing the existence of nationalism and
attempting to do something to alleviate the problems it created, it
should be recognized that neither he nor anyone else in the
denomination addressed the reality of the impact of cultural
difference on administrative structures. Difference was not
understood as a positive value which, if addressed carefully, could
enhance the suitability of structures in diverse situations. In fact,
there is no indication that cultural difference was even considered
except in the question by Rupert who was asking for more widespread
representation on the executive committee. See above pages 301-3.
 326

so, what role should theological considerations play in the

determination of structural forms which meet the need of the church?

How does the church's continuing commitment to mission impact on the

form of structure that the church uses to accommodate growth and

facilitate its mission? Answers to these questions may be found by

considering some of the implications for the church which arise from

this study.

Flexibility of Structural Form

If the reorganization of the structural form of the Seventh-

day Adventist Church had been determined between 1888 and 1903 on the

basis of a rigidly defined theological ecclesiology, it would be very

difficult to insist on the flexibility of its administrative

structures. If form rather than principle had been the primary focus

of that process, then the possibility of flexibility and adaptability

of structures would be even more unlikely. The church, however, did

not have a creedal statement which formalized a well-defined

ecclesiology. Had its administrative structures arisen explicitly

from such an ecclesiology, the Seventh-day Adventist Church would have

a basis upon which to insist on rigidity of its structural form.

Denominational structures were reorganized at a time when the church's

ecclesiological understanding was defined more with reference to

function than to an introspective ontological perspective. The

contention was that there were certain "principles" which were

determinative of form. The application of those principles was

understood to be subject to the contingencies of time and place.

Therefore, inasmuch as the function of the church was integral

 327

to its ecclesiological perspective and the principles of organization

were themselves adaptable, it is the position of this study that the

Seventh-day Adventist Church has the responsibility to maintain an

openness to continuous changes in its organizational structures which

respond to the needs of its international constituency and missionary

endeavor. Partly because of the paucity of ecclesiological thought

and partly because of the internationalization of the church, the

existing form of organization--in essence the form of organization

adopted in 1901-1903--is considered by many to be inadequate to cope

with the worldwide scope of the missionary endeavor of the church.

A Functional Ecclesiology

Commitment to a belief in the imminence of the coming of

Christ and to the task of evangelizing the world in preparation for

that event has displaced any tendency in the Seventh-day Adventist

Church toward the development of an introspective ontological

ecclesiology. There were some--Jones, Waggoner, and their allies--who

attempted to think theologically about the church. They endeavored to

invoke biblical images as their foundation for an ecclesiology which

emphasized ontological images of the church--that is, an ecclesiology

which was more focused on what the church was rather than on what the

church did.

However, majority opinion among the leaders of the

denomination held that their concern for the task of world

evangelization was far too pressing for the church to commit itself to

an ecclesiological position which did not give sufficient attention to

the urgency of the task and its global scope. It was understood that
 328

it was the task that called the church into being and into action.

Therefore, it followed that since the church was defined in terms of

its mission and its functions, administrative structures were needed

which optimized the realization of those functions.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church still operates with

ecclesiological priorities which are better described as functional

than ontological. A thorough, well-defined or systematic

ecclesiological undergirding for its structure has not been

formulated. Despite that deficiency, the impression is often given by

many who hold positions of responsibility within the denomination,

that the structures of organization in the church are not subject to

adaptation or change. They seem to assume that rigidity is necessary

for unity and that uniformity enhances organizational solidarity in

the church. Their contention appears to be founded on the pragmatic

assumption that change would invite disunity. They appear to assume

that the form of organization adopted by the church was itself

specified by divine revelation.1

^In 1979, a former vice-president of the General Conference

said that "anything that undermines the basic church structure,
however effective and efficient the program might be momentarily,
eventually results in disunity and ineffectiveness" (Walter R. Beach,
"More on Preserving Unity Worldwide," RH, 27 December 1979, 12). In
the same paragraph Beach admitted that "certain adaptations" may be
necessary in view of the need for "relevancy and growth." However,
having stated that probability, Beach appears, in the sentence quoted
above, to deny its possibility. Later in the article he reiterates
his position: "Uniformity will be reserved for the basics of church
policy and practice. This concept is indispensable to worldwide
unity" (ibid., 13). It has been reported that in 1984, William Bothe,
secretary of the North American Division at the time, said: "’We can
say with the utmost conviction that the basic principles of church
organization followed by the Seventh-day Adventist Church are as truly
inspired as are the basic beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
that we hold so dearly'" (Terrie D. Aamodt, "Laity Transform North
 329

In the light of this study, such a position is somewhat

incongruous. Rigid ecclesiastical structures normally arise from a

well-defined, systematic ecclesiology which is focused on ontological

images of the church. The Roman Catholic hierarchical structure is a

case in point. In fact, any church which has a theology of apostolic

succession and is presided over by bishops has rigid structures which

arise directly from its theological stance. It is incongruous,

however, that rigid structures should arise in a church whose

ecclesiology is nearly always thought of in terms of mission--the

function of the church. Especially is such the case when it is

considered that the accomplishment ofits commission to preach the

gospel to the world is prioritized tothe extent that it is in the

Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Centralization and coordination of administrative structures

are necessary in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The denomination

has a world-wide scope which necessitates well-considered global

strategies as well as localized plans and methods for evangelism.

Congregational structural forms are not appropriate for the

denomination. But the denomination should not be so rigid that it is

unable to allow for the adaptation ofits structures. Flexibility and

the ability to adapt accord well with the ecclesiological emphases of

the church and the contingencies of its task.

Pacific Constitution," Spectrum 15 [December 1984): 7). The same

journal stated the concern of some that "Adventist church structure is
being raised to the level of doctrinal orthodoxy" (Association of
Adventist Forums, "A Reaffirmation of Purpose," Spectrum 15 (December
1984 ): 29).
 330

Ellen G. White and Flexibility

Careful study of the writings of Ellen White indicates that

she was totally committed to the necessity of organization in the

Seventh-day Adventist Church. Any criticism which she addressed to

the leaders of the church arose from her intense loyalty to the church

and her desire to see it fulfill the commission which she believed it

had been given by divine mandate. Her reproof and counsel was not

given because she denigrated the church and regarded it as Babylon,

but because she wanted it to attain to the full potential as the agent

of Christ's mission to the world.

Ellen White's ecclesiological position appears to have been

more balanced than that of either Jones or Daniells. She discussed

themes which were integral to the positions of both parties. That her

concern was more for the task of the church than for the ontological

nature of the church, however, is indicated by her ultimate support

for the principles of organization that formed the basis for the

administrative structure adopted in 1903.

Her emphasis on the task of the church was consistent with her

emphatic call for change when it came to the principles that were to

be considered in the process of reorganization. At no time previous

to reorganization nor during the process did she propose specific

forms. Rather, she chose to address principles and left it to the

church to determine forms. The very fact that she advocated change is

indicative of her flexibility, especially since, in 1893, she had

indicated that organization was settled.^

^See pages 207-10 above.

 331

The writings of Ellen White carried a great deal of influence

in the church in 1901-1903. Her writings continue to be regarded as

authoritative in the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church.^

Given the nature of her authority in the church it should follow that

if she advocated and supported the principles of reorganization while

at the same time permitting flexibility of structural forms, the

contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church should appeal to her

writings as a basis for flexibility of its structural forms.

The Priority of Principle over Form

The principles of reorganization which have been described in

this study are unity and diversity, representation, authority,

simplicity, and adaptability. It has not been my purpose to define

new structures for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It is not even

the purpose of the study to suggest that the existing structures

should be changed. Rather, it is the purpose of the study to suggest

with reference to the process of reorganization in 1888-1903 that

change is integral to the very formulation of the structures

themselves. The task of assessing the necessity for change, the

Process of change, and its outcome belongs to the corporate church,

not to an exclusive group within the church. Attention to the

Priority of principle over form can mean that the church can maintain

commitment to the principles of reorganization and still

^This study does not address the issue of the nature of Ellen
White's authority in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Much has been
written on the topic. For a brief summary statement see Seventh-day
Adventists Relieve. . . A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental
Bgctrines (Washington, D.C.: Ministerial Association, General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1988), 216-29.
 332

institutionalize forms which accommodate growth and facilitate

mission.

In her address to the leaders of the church in the Battle

Creek College library on the day before the opening of the General

Conference session in 1901, Ellen White spoke of principles of

organization, not of any specific form that was to be adopted as a

result of reorganization. Referring to the need for change, she said,

"the principle is wrong; . . . the principles have become so mixed and

so foreign from what God's principles are [that] unless they [the

leaders] can show a better idea of what principle is . . . [,] they

will have to be changed." Nowhere in that address did she describe

structural forms as such. She talked, as she always did in advocating

change, in terms of principles. The next day, in an address to the

session itself, she reaffirmed her consistent position. While calling

for "renovation" and "reorganization," she was not prepared to say

"just how" the structural forms were to be defined.^

Ellen White's commitment to principle rather than form and her

view of the missionary nature of the church imply responsibility on

the part of the church to ensure that contemporary administrative

structures are flexible. While it is granted that such flexibility is

limited by the nature of the principle, it should also be conceded

that principle does not denote form and that flexibility of form is

integral to the definition of principle in contrast to form.

■*-Ellen G. White, "College Library Address"; GC Bulletin. 1901,

25-26.
 333

Thenlogica1 Awareness

The Need for a Systematic Ecclesiology

The difference between the structural forms proposed by Jones,

on the one hand, and by Daniells, on the other, was indicative of the

dependence of their propositions on their particular ecclesiological

emphases. Jones attempted to define a congregational church structure

that arose from his interpretation of the New testament references to

the local church. He was more concerned with the being of the church

than with the task of the church. He understood the nature

church in terms of the headship of Christ in the church. Structures

were authenticated by their expression of that headship,

to substantiate his positions with explicit biblical referen

Daniells's proposal, on the other hand, was accepted by the

denomination, because he advocated an ecclesiastical structure that

gave priority to the realization of the missionary mandate of the

church and which was able to accommodate the universal perspec

that sense of mission. Daniells did not understand the priorities of

the church in terms of any ecclesiological categ

, e nature of the church to
subordinated theological consideration o

his commitment to the evangelization of the world. Nowhere did he

explicitly set out a carefully defined ecclesiology. His was an

overwhelmingly functional view of the church. Structures

. hack Structures were the
context of the need to perform the assigned

servant of the task. They were not the result of systemati

theological reflection regarding the nature of the church.

x ctudv that the theological
It has been pointed out in th y
 334

principles which, in 1901-1903, were foundational to the formulation

of structures were not explicitly stated by Daniells and his allies.

That is not to say that they did not have in mind some theological

presuppositions and principles which guided their deliberations and

decisions. They understood the eschatological-missiological

dimensions of the task to which the church had addressed itself, but

they did not consider it necessary to address the nature of the church

itself in order to assess the best structures for task realization.

In recent years, discussion regarding the doctrine of

ecclesiology in the Seventh-day Adventist Church has begun.^ Seven of

the fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists voted at the General

Conference session in 1980 are concerned with ecclesiological themes.

Recently, those seven beliefs have been grouped together under the

1-See Raoul Dederen, "The Nature of the Church," Ministry. July

1972, 3-6, 32-35; Gottfried Oosterwal, "A Lay Movement," RH, 7
February 1974, 9-11; Walter B. Beach, "What and Where Is the Church?"
RH . 11 January 1979, 4-6; Richard Rice, "Dominant Themes in Adventist
Theology," Spectrum 10 (March 1980): 58-74; Jack Provonsha, "The
Church as a Prophetic Minority," Spectrum 12 (September 1981): 18-23;
Bert B. Beach, "Windows of Vulnerability," RH, 2 August 1984, 3-5;
Raoul Dederen, "Tomorrow's Church, Truly a ’Remnant,'" RH 9 January
1986, 8-10; Charles Scriven, "The Real Truth about the Remnant,"
Spectrum 17 (October 1986): 6-13; George Rice, "The Church: Voice of
God?" Ministry. December 1987, 4-6. In 1988, the Biblical Research
Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists began a
systematic and historical study of ecclesiology as it relates to the
Seventh-day Adventist Church. Whether or not any papers presented to
the Institute will be published, and what impact the research will
have on the church and its structure remains to be seen.

^Those seven are "The Church," "The Remnant and Its Mission,"
"Unity in the Body of Christ," "Baptism," "The Lord’s Supper,"
"Spiritual Gifts and Ministries," and "The Gift of Prophecy." See
Church Manual. 23-31. For further explanation of the statement of the
fundamental beliefs as voted at Dallas and an illumination of each,
see RH, 30 July 1981, 1-31; and Seventh-dav Adventists Believe.
 335

heading of the doctrine of the church.^- Whereas, in the history of

the Seventh-day Adventist Church, ecclesiological consideration has

more often been called forth by necessity--generally in the context of

discussions of church polity--there appears to be a growing

2
realization that a systematic study of ecclesiology is vital.

If the structures of the church are to reflect the theological

dimensions of the church, more thorough ecclesiological work with

reference to the uniqueness of the Seventh-day Adventist message and

mission needs to be done. The church needs to integrate both

ontological and functional categories in its ecclesiology. Can the

lsee Seventh-day Adventists Believe, 133 229

2See James S. Barclay, ^ ^ ^ a r t e ^ S ^ S t o k e s , and Neal C

Frank L. Jones, Winslow B. Randall, Structure of the Seventh-
Wilson, "Organization: A Discussion o 1972)' 42-62; Ron Walden,
day Adventist Church,” Spectrum 4 (sPrlng „ ¿Dectrum 9 (March
"How Hierarchical Views of the Chur c h Em® « ¿ T ^ T t h e Church," 2-
1978): 16-22; Charles E. Bradford "The A u t h o r i t y ^ ^ 1981, 8;
part series in RH, 19 February 1981, 4 , ^ 28 July 1983, 14-15;
George W. Reid, "Time to Reorder the C h u - i^ructure," Spectrum 14
Raymond F. Cottrell, "The Varieties o ^ and for the
(March 1984): 40-53; Roy Branson, "A c"ur rrosbv, "The New
People," Spectrum 15 (August 1984). . Congregational?" RH, 14
Testament Church: Was It Hierarchies _mer's vision: The Church as
February 1985, 5-7; Lorna Tobler, "A Re ° 18-23; Alden
e Fellowship of Equals," Spectrum 16,, j „e 1985, 14-15; Caleb Rosado,
Thompson, "Wanted: Innovators," RH, » Ministry. November 1987,
"The Deceptive Theology of Institutions ’naiiy one of the least
9-12. In 1980 Richard Rice wrote: Tradl“ ™ ^ rine of the church
developed aspects of Adventist t h e o r y ’ s is ^ largeiy to social
has become a major topic of interes . history of Christianity
and political developments, which, as theological reflection,
reveals, often provide a powerful stimu . ^ssues fall into two
In current adventist ecclesiology, t e p relations between the
categories: relations within the church, the area 0f intrachurch
church and other people and institutions. rg and scope of church
relations, the major questions concern ieadership of the church and
authority. Who should participate in hprs be subject to church
to What extent should the lives of 1 « m e m b e r s ^
authority?" (Richard Rice, "Dominant Themes,
 336

members of the church say that the church is only something to belong

to, or something to be?l Is the church only to be defined with

reference to its task, or should more attention be given to those

elements of New Testament ecclesiology which address the being of the

church?

Structures should not be adopted only on the basis of the need

for a pragmatic response to the contingencies of time and place. That

such has occurred in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is indicative of

the paucity of well-defined ecclesiological thought in the church.

That is not to say that the structures need not be adaptable to time

and place. They can be. But again, the flexibility and adaptability

of those structures should emerge from ecclesiological understanding

and not only from pragmatic responses to a particular set of

circumstances.

The Need for a Hermeneutic for

Ellen G. White's Writings

Failure to use the writings of Ellen White in their proper

literary context leads to distortion of her primary emphasis.^

Failure to use her writings within their proper historical context

could have the same result. If Seventh-day Adventists are to

understand their own history correctly and evaluate the role of Ellen

White in the formulation of their organizational structure, they are

obliged to use her writings in a consistent, contextualized manner.

^Association of Adventist Forums, "Defining Participation: A

Model Conference Constitution," Spectrum 14 (March 1984): 25.

^See pages 205-16 above.

 337

That careful use has not always been made of her statements promoting

organization in the church has been alluded to already in this s y

But implications for the structure of the church can not be properly

understood unless proper hermeneutical principles are use

No attempt can be made, given the limitations of this study,

to explicate some hermeneutical principles for the writings

White. The dissention over the use of a title for the chief

officer of the church illustrates that on some occasions proper

hermeneutical principles were not used when important matt

regarding organization were being decided. Not only did Jones

associates extract a single sentence from its context and

substantiate their particular point of view regarding the presidency,

but there does not appear to be any evidence that any serious attempt

was made to understand Ellen White's main point th

delegation of authority. On the other hand, the correspondence that

passed between Daniells and W. C. White indicates that they were more

successful in their attempt to ascertain the meaning of Ellen

statement and, therefore were convinced that she was not decry g

use of the title "president." W. W. Prescott accepted what they were

saying and changed his point of view. It seems that once he

understood the correct hermeneutical methodology, he was sati

that Ellen White was not opposed to the use of the title p

1For discussion of the issue, see pages 184-201 above.

 338

The Seventh-day Adventist Commitment to Mission

Unity in Diversity

Whether the church chooses to continue to emphasize

ecclesiological categories which derive from the nature of the task or

chooses instead to emphasize ecclesiological categories which are more

concerned with ontology, the principles of unity and diversity should

be integrated within the structures of the church.

An ecclesiology which focuses on ontological considerations

requires the church to recognize that its nature is a blending of

diverse elements into a unified whole. Indeed, the church, according

to the New Testament, should not be a mass of diverse, disjointed

parts if ontological considerations are taken seriously. The church

is one; whole, complete, and unified by and in Christ. Unity is

called for precisely because there is multiplicity and diversity in

the church. Diversity is just as much a fact in the church as unity.

A unique quality which should set the church apart from the world is

its ability to hold in unity the very diversity that gives it life

within itself. It should have the capacity to recognize the value and

the contribution of each part. It was not Christ's intention that the

church should have unity but no diversity. It is the maintenance of

diversity which makes the nature of the church's unity in Christ

unique and indispensable.

An ecclesiology which focuses on the function of the church,

on the other hand, also requires the maintenance of equilibrium

between the principles of unity and diversity, but for a different

reason. If diversity is neglected, the church will be unable to

,
 339

perform its task. It will neglect that very element which enables it

to evangelize a multiplex world--its own diversity. Anthropological,

cultural, and sociological diversity facilitate the growth of the

church and the realization of its mission.^ The church which

subordinates the need to recognize diversity to a demand for unity is

denying the very means by which it is best equipped to accomplish the

task.^

The issue is not whether unity is vital to the nature and

mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Unity is indispensable

in the life of the church. The body of Christ is one. The witness of

the New Testament is unequivocal regarding the need for unity in the

church. Rather, the issue for the Seventh-day Adventist Church is

whether or not unity is to be regarded as that organizing principle

whose importance eclipses that of all other principles which may also

^See Donald A. McGavran, The Bridges of God (London: World

Dominion Press, 1955); idem, Understanding Church Growth, rev. ed.,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980); C. Peter Wagner, Your Church Can Grow
(Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books, 1976), 110-123; Roger L. Dudley and Des
Cummings, Jr., Adventures in Church Growth (Hagerstown, Md.: Review
and Herald, 1983), 51-58.

^The establishment of the Global Strategy Coordinating

Committee by 1987 the annual council of the General Conference
executive committee, and the appointment of Charles Taylor as special
assistant to the president for research and analysis, was the start of
what is hoped will be a greater commitment on the part of the Seventh-
day Adventist Church to come to terms with the nature of the task that
confronts it. See Kit Watts, "Global Strategy: Stretching for Jesus,"
EH 17 December 1987, 5. Other agencies and denominations have been
niore forward thinking and have been actively engaged in research and
analysis for many years. Examples include, Ralph and Roberta
Winter's U.S. Center for World Mission in Pasadena, California; MARC,
a division of World Vision in Monrovia, California; the Strategy
Working Group of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization,
Charlotte, North Carolina; Foreign Mission Board, Southern Baptist
Convention, Richmond, Virginia; and Wycliffe Bible Translators,
Dallas, Texas.
 340

be determinative of the structures of organization.^

Organizing principles can be evaluated in terms of the goals

of the church. Seventh-day Adventists should continually ask

themselves whether the primary goal toward which they are moving is

the maintenance of unity, or whether their priority is task

accomplishment--the evangelization of the world. If it is the latter,

then the structures of the church should be understood and evaluated

in terms which express the primacy of that goal. Subordinate goals

have their place, but the church needs to be focused, and its

structures should be oriented to that which is primary.

In the context of the theological, financial, and

organizational turmoil that has characterized the Seventh-day

Adventist Church in the 1980s, it appears that emphasis on unity has

been used to define the structure, or, rather, to perpetuate the

structure that has existed with modifications since 1903. Although

commitment to the evangelization of the world remains, it appears that

structures are not being related so much to the facilitation of that

task as to the preservation of worldwide unity. Unity is expressed as

the prerequisite of mission. For example, in 1984, Neal Wilson,

^Because the denomination has not delineated a systematic

ecclesiology, it is not possible to say that any specific principle is
the organizing principle of the church. All that can be said is that
there are emphases in the publications, executive actions, and
decisions of the church which are indicative of a tendency to
concentrate attention on unity as the organizing principle of first
importance.

^Lyle Schaller introduced the idea of an organizing principle

with reference to local church congregations. I have applied his
concept to the denomination as a whole. See Lyle E. Schaller, Growing
Plans (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1983), 128-33.
 34 1

president of the General Conference, said, with reference to the

relationship between the General Conference and the North American

Division, that the preservation of the present structures in the

church would prevent fragmentation of the church. He maintained that

the "church must remain united." He insisted, however, that in order

for that to be so, the church needed "strong centralized authority

derived from all its parts"! (emphasis supplied).

The report of the Role and Function of Denominational

Organizations Commission which was voted at the 1985 General

Conference session in New Orleans was concerned with the unity of the

church. The first section of the report was titled: "Preserving the

Unity of Church and Message." Though the report briefly mentions that

the structure permitted a "decentralized sharing of administrative and

promotional responsibilities with many individuals and organizations

on four constituency levels in all parts of the world" and encouraged

working leadership to relate "as closely as possible to local

circumstances and to a responsible constituency," it stressed that

unity was a function of, among other things, operating the church "in

full harmony with the General Conference Working Policy." It pointed

out that compliance and uniformity assured the church that "unity of
2
working methods and organization" would be maintained.

^•Neal C. Wilson, "Rationale for a Special Relationship,"

Spectrum 15 (December 1984): 24.

^"Session Actions," RH, 5 July 1985, 9-10. In the first

section of the report there are twenty-three references to the words
"unity," "unified," and "uniting." The same section has no reference
at all to the concept of "diversity," although it does refer to
"decentralized sharing of administrative and promotional
responsibilities." The question to be asked is where is the balanced
 342

But if unity becomes the principle of first importance on the

agendas of Seventh-day Adventist administrators and church members,

then they may fail to achieve their goal just as surely as if the

celebration of diversity were to become the primary agenda item.

Unity or diversity cannot be goals in themselves. Rather they are

principles of organization that together, in balance, facilitate goal

accomplishment. Even if the church were to express its ecclesiology

in more ontological terms or diversify its aims and objectives, the

principles of unity or diversity alone, would not adequately express

the objectives of the church. They are principles of facilitation of

the mission and life of the church, which, when in balance, function

towards the accomplishment of the purpose of the church.

Because decentralization was an important principle of

organization in 1901, it should not be assumed that the principle of

unity was lost sight of. The day before the 1901 General Conference

session, Ellen White exhorted the leaders of the church to unify.^

Even so, her concern at that time was more on the need to recognize

the principle of diversity and to decentralize and delegate

responsibility. This was done at the session and all were satisfied

for a time.

It was not long, however, before the need for unity began to

ecclesiological rationale behind the report? The need for unity can
not be compromised, but the statement of its form is cast into serious
question when inadequate attention is given to the diversity of the
church. See also Beach, "Reflections on Church Structure;" idem, "The
Role of Unions;1' and Beach and Beach, Pattern for Progress. 118-129.

^Ellen G. White, "College Library Address."

 34 3

displace the emphasis on decentralization in the denomination. It

happened as a consequence of the theological and organizational

confrontation begun in mid-1902. While decentralization was still

proclaimed as the principle of reorganization, the maintenance of

unity became a priority because of the circumstances that existed.

In order to meet what she perceived as too much emphasis on

centralized decision making, Ellen White used some of the very

statements which she had used before reorganization to address the

problem of centralization after 1903. Though supportive of the church

and of the concept and principles of organization, she was highly

critical of the centralizing tendencies of the General Conference and

of other levels of church administration. Her commitment to the

importance of maintaining the principles of unity and diversity in

balance did not allow her to take a narrow view of either the

structures or the administrative practices of the church.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church today should carefully seek

to maintain a balance between expression of the principles of unity

^Gary Land has commented that "theoretically, the changes made

in organizational structure beginning in 1901 were to decentralize the
affairs of the denomination. For the most part, the Unions were to be
the means of this decentralization, but they never became really
independent administrative agencies." Land further pointed out that
the integration of the auxiliary organizations as departments of the
General Conference did, in fact, result in a centralization of
authority. The span of executive control of the General Conference
officers and executive committee increased in that respect. However,
that aspect of reorganization was never described as centralization by
the leaders of the church. Perhaps the reason was that the new
structure proved effective as an instrument of mission. Land
concluded with reference to the more contemporary needs of the church
that "whether it is still adequate in 1975 [date of writing] is a
question that deserves serious examination" (Gary Land, "Where Did
Adventist Organizational Structure Come From?” Spectrum 7 [Spring
1975]: 27).
 344

and diversity in its administrative structures. Tensions which may

arise because of theological controversy,^ debate over structural and

administrative issues,^ financial embarrassment or concern,^ a narrow

view of the task,^ or remnants of ethnocentric and nationalistic

^Theological controversies in the Seventh-day Adventist Church

in the last decade, for example, have concerned the doctrines of
righteousness by faith, the sanctuary, and the integrity and function
of the gift of prophecy in the church.

^Actions at the last two sessions of the General Conference

and discussion at annual councils of the General Conference executive
committee since 1980 have reflected concern for organizational issues
within the church. That the concern has escalated in the last two
decades is indicated by the number of articles on the subject that
have been printed for the Seventh-day Adventist constituency. In the
decade 1966-1975 there were twenty-three significant articles on the
subject of church organization in RH and Ministry ("significant"
denotes an article more than one page in length). In addition, there
were eleven significant articles on church structure in Spectrum. In
the following decade, 1976-1985, discussion escalated remarkably. In
RH and Ministry there were only twenty-nine articles on the same
subject area--a modest increase of six over the previous decade.
There were, however, forty significant articles in Spectrum and a
similar proportional increase in articles on the subject in union
conference publications. While the central church publications did
not register a particularly significant increase in the number of
articles published, the increase in the number of articles oh church
organization published in the quasi-Adventist publication Spectrum,
and in the union publications in the United States is indicative of
the interest and concern of the church in the discussion.

^Concern for the financial stability of the Seventh-day

Adventist Church has been expressed in lieu of the Davenport crisis,
and the bankruptcy of the Harris Pine Mills. Continuing concern over
the debt of the Adventist Health System is evident.

^Reference has been made above to the Adventist view of the

task of world evangelization as being tied to geographical and
national categories rather than global and "people-group" categories.
Integrated with this has been a "penchant for numerics" which may
give the impression that the church is more concerned with numbers
than with disciples.
 34 5

thinking^ should not be permitted to prevent it from seeking

structures which institutionalize its commitment to maintaining

equilibrium between unity and diversity. Although it is exceedingly

^Remnants of the colonial mentality and nationalistic fervor

which were characteristics of the age in which the church was
organized cannot be permitted to persist in Seventh-day Adventism.
Not surprisingly, examples of such thinking are abundant in the
records of the church of that period. For instance, in 1894 Haskell
wrote to Olsen: "I am strongly of the conviction you want men from
America. God for some reasons has chosen that country, and has given
a mould to the people that fits them to be missionaries better than
any other people on the earth" (S. N. Haskell to 0. A. Olsen, 8
October 1894, RG 9, 0. A. Olsen Folder 5, GCAr). When reporting for
the Foreign Mission Board at the 1901 General Conference session,
I. H. Evans, the incumbent president of the board, said: "We shall
probably always need some wise managers who shall go from Anglo-Saxon
countries to direct the work; but we believe that in the future,
economy and experience will teach us that besides the leading managers
and teachers we must look to the development and training of native
talent to do the work" (GC Bulletin. 1901, 96). He had no thought
that there would ever be a time when there would be indigenous leaders
in foreign countries. The organizational structure of the church was
framed in just such a context. Other statements which illustrate a
position relative to the manifest destiny of the United States were,
for example, "The Strongest Nation in the World," RH, 10 February
1885, 96; Stephen N. Haskell, "The Leading Nations of the Earth," RH
16 April 1889, 246; idem, "The Work before Us," RH, 25 February 1890,
121; F. M. Wilcox, "The Work in Many Lands," RH, 10 July 1894, 438; W.
Lenker, "Influence of the United States upon India," RH, 26 June 1894,
405; Sten 1903, 29 March 1903, "Sermon by L. R. Conradi," lOa-lOb, RG
0, GCAr. A more contemporary statement is found in Neal C. Wilson,
"Rationale for a Special Relationship," 22. For warnings of the
dangers of ethnocentric and nationalistic pride and prejudice, see
William A. Spicer's speech in "Notes from the General Conference," RH
7 May 1901, 296-97; Gottfried Oosterwal, "Adventist Mission: After a
Hundred Years," Ministry. September 1974, 27; Russell L. Staples, "The
Church in the Third World," RH, 14 February 1974, 6-8; Caleb Rosado,
"The Deceptive Theology of Institutionalism," Ministry. November 1987,
II. A commitment to a doctrine of unity which imposes alien forms on
any group, when adequate Christian forms could be derived from within
the culture of the group itself, does not enhance unity. Such an
endeavor, while creating an impression of uniformity, will result in
discord and, to use Ellen White's term, "insubordination." (Ellen G.
White, Special Instruction Relating to the Review and Herald Office
and the Work in Battle Creek ([Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald,
1896]), 33). See also Ellen G. White to 0. A. Olsen, 19 September
1895, Letter 55, 1895, EGWB-AU.
 346

difficult to maintain commitment to diversity in the face of the

pressures which are brought to bear on the administration of the

church, the shape of the church and the needs of the world make such

commitment even more urgent as the year 2000 approaches than they did

a century ago. Diversity is today a fact. The church can not repress

it. It would do better to celebrate it. Structures and

administrative methods can be continuously monitored and modified

where necessary in such a way as to promote the self-support, self-

propagation, and self-discipline of all the diverse parts of the

church without compromising the unity of the church. While each part

of the church may be fully the church, no part should be conceived of

or conceive of itself, as totally the church. Unity is dependent on

the recognition of diversity.

The Effect of the Primacy of Mission

on Denominational Structures

How does the Seventh-day Adventist Church's continuing

commitment to mission effect the structures that the church uses to

accommodate growth and facilitate its mission? Does the church wish

to continue to define itself in terms of its mission? The answers to

these questions are to be found in the first instance by consideration

of the implications of the church's commitment to a strong

eschatological urgency and sense of certainty and hope in the return

of Jesus Christ.
 34 7

An Eschatological Foundation for

the Mission of the Church

Seventh-day Adventists remain committed to their

eschatological emphasis in theology.^ One of the reasons why the

denominational growth patterns reflect much more rapid growth among

those who live in what have been traditionally called "third world"

countries is that the church is able to project a message of hope,

even in apparently hopeless situations. That message is integral to

belief in the imminent return of Christ and the inauguration of a new

order, and foundational to the mission of the church.^

In the strategic planning of the church and the promotion of

programs designed to quantify the accomplishment of measurable goals,

mission is still considered in reference to the advent of Christ. The

document "Evangelism and Finishing God's Work," voted at the Autumn

Council of the General Conference executive committee in 1976,

described the mission of the church in the context of eschatological

language.-^ In the 1980s, growth has been promoted in terms of

^See for example, Seventh-day Adventists Believe. 313-83; V.

Norskov Olsen, ed. The Advent Hope in Scripture and History
(Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald, 1987) .

^It is not correct to say, however, that Seventh-day

Adventists only promote hope in the context of future realization.
Seventh-day Adventists have long demonstrated their commitment to the
realization of hope in the present by their commitment to social
welfare and humanitarian concerns. Theirs is not a passive
expectation of the eschaton, a legacy of Calvinistic determinism.
Their's is an active hastening toward the eschaton. Christian social
concern is regarded as a necessary component of a holistic approach to
preparation for that event. Edward W. H. Vick, "Observations on the
Adventism of Seventh-day Adventists," in The Stature of Christ, eds.,
Vern Carner and Gary Stanhiser (Loma Linda, Calif: privately printed,
1970), 197.

^"Resolution or Revolution?" Ministry. December 1976, 1-10.

 34 8

eschatological symbolism: "One Thousand Days of Reaping"--a program

whose aim was to baptize an average of one thousand persons a day for

one thousand days--and "Harvest Ninety"--a program which has the goal

of doubling the number of accessions of the "One Thousand Days of

Reaping" before the General Conference session of 1990.

Despite the continuing link between mission and eschatology,

there have been some changes in the eschatological emphasis in the

church since 1903. Eschatology is no longer considered in terms of

"this generation" in the same way that it was at the 1903 General

Conference session.3 Adventist eschatology has become much more

comprehensive in its treatment of the biblical data. For example, it

has recently been asserted that "the final act in the process of

redemption is not by any means to be regarded as the heart and center

of that process."^ While the church's eschatology should continue to

convey hope and certainty for the future, even an Adventist theology

should be "built necessarily and explicitly on the composite event of

the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ" and

not only on an eschatological framework. The only reason, it has been

affirmed, that there can be a final consummation is that there has

been an event which demands consummation.

■'■See Fritz Guy, "The Future and the Present: The Meaning of
the Advent Hope," in Olsen, The Advent Hope. 211-29; Roy Branson,
"Adventists Between the Times: The Shift in the Church's Eschatology,
Spectrum 8 (September 1976): 15-26; and James Londis, "Waiting for
the Messiah: The Absence and Presence of God in Adventism," Spectrum
18 (February 1988): 5-11;

^Guy, "The Future and the Present," 211.

3Ibid., 212.
 34 9

That does not mean that Its traditional eschatological focus

must be forsaken by the church. What it does mean is that that

eschatological focus and a commitment to mission must be set in the

framework of a theological system which is uniquely Adventist, but at

the same time well-balanced and systematic. It also means that a

church organization which grows out of an eschatological foundation

may need to take into account other theological categories and be

modified so as to reflect appreciation of those categories. This

could well mean that a more ontological view of the church is a

necessary prerequisite of future considerations of organizational

modification.

On the other hand, it does not mean that commitment to

eschatological imminence and structural organization are no longer

compatible. There is no necessary discontinuity between

eschatological hope and expectancy and church organization. There was

no such discontinuity in the New Testament church and none is

necessary today.^

If eschatological emphases are changing and imminence is not

^Damsteegt has stated that apocalyptic-eschatological

dimensions of the three angel's messages were the foundation for a
Seventh-day Adventist theology of mission in the period 1850-1874.
However, he has also pointed out that there were some other themes
which were occasionally referred to-- the "Tmltatio Christ!." "the
light of the world--the salt of the earth," "love," "salvation of
others," and "the parable of the talents" (Damsteegt, Foundations of
Seventh-dav Adventist Mission. 263-68). More recently, Roy Branson
has suggested, by way of example, that doctrines such as creation,
salvation, and the priesthood of believers could inform the Seventh-
day Adventist Church structure. Roy Branson, "Changing Church
Structure: A Modest Proposal," JD (1983): 14-15.

^Branson, "Adventists Between the Times," 24.

 35 0

regarded with quite the same level of expectation as it was at the

time of reorganization, how has that affected the Adventist concept of

mission and how has that, in turn, affected the concept of the church

and its structures? This is a very difficult question to answer.

Thorough study is needed which evaluates and sets forth the theology,

theory, and practice of Seventh-day Adventist mission and its

implications for ecclesiology and church government in the

contemporary world.

There have been some advances in that direction.

^-Walter Douglas, John Elick, Merle Manley, Gottfried

Oosterwal, and Russell Staples have been at the forefront of those
within the Adventist Church who have attempted to place missiology on
a credible basis. More recently, P. Gerard Damsteegt, Borge Schantz,
and Bruce Bauer have written dissertations on subjects related to
Seventh-day Adventist Mission. Other dissertations on mission in the
Adventist Church are being prepared. The need for a thoroughgoing
theology of Adventist mission was pointed out by Oosterwal in 1971.
He wrote: "The church has been called into existence for missionary
purposes. Its whole life and liturgy, work and worship, therefore
should have a missionary intention, if not a missionary dimension."
He continued: "Adventist missionary outreach today stands in great
need of a theology of mission to guide the church in its preaching,
policies, message, and methods" (Gottfried Oosterwal, "Mission in a
New Key," Spectrum 3 [Summer 1971]: 13, 19, 20). One year later
Oosterwal answered his own call for a theology of Adventist mission by
publishing an article in which he suggested eight categories as the
basis of an Adventist theology of mission. Gottfried Oosterwal, "The
Mission of the Church," Ministry. July 1972, 7-10, 36-39. Shortly
thereafter he published a book which made a considerable impact on
Adventist mission theory and practice. Gottfried Oosterwal, Mission
Possible (Nashville, Tenn.: Southern Publishing Association, 1972).
Since that time articles published on the subject of mission have
included, Gottfried Oosterwal, "A Lay Movement," RH, 7 February 1974,
9-11; Russell L. Staples, "The Church in the Third World," RH, 14
February 1974, 6-8; Gottfried Oosterwal, "Adventist Mission: After a
Hundred Years," Ministry. September 1974, 24-27; idem. "The New Shape
of Adventist Mission," Spectrum 7 (Spring 1975): 34-43; idem. "How
Many Tragedies: A Commentary," Spectrum 7 (Summer 1975): 45-47;
Russell L. Staples, "The Gospel to the World," Insight. 20 April 1976,
14-17; Walter B. T. Douglas, "Advent Mission: an Engagement with the
World," Insight. 20 April 1976, 17-20; Gottfried Oosterwal, "What Kind
of Missionary," Insight. 20 April 1976, 20-24; Russell Staples,
 35 1

However, a thorough, contemporary theology of Seventh-day Adventist

mission is still to be written, as is a theory of Seventh-day

Adventist mission and a history of religions from a Seventh-day

Adventist perspective.^ Though Seventh-day Adventists have espoused a

compelling commitment to mission and regarded themselves as

commissioned to take the gospel to the world, their missiological

writings and the presence of missiologists on the faculties of their

universities and colleges have both remained minuscule in comparison

to the emphasis which evangelization receives in the literature and in

"Internationalization of the Church," Spectrum 11 (July 1980): 4;

idem. "The Face of the Church to Come," RH, 2 January 1986, 8-10;
Gottfried Oosterwal, "Mission Still Possible," Ministry. December
1986, 4-8; Walter B. T. Douglas, "Reaching the Unreached," RH, 16 June
1988, 20-21.

^Walter Douglas addressed the problem of the history of

religions in the an article published in June 1988. The publication
of the article was itself a theological statement. Seventh-day
Adventists recognize the possibility of divine revelation operating
outside the Judaeo-Christian framework. Using a quotation from Ellen
White, Douglas asserted that "our first task among unreached people is
to discover God's presence there, to discover how he is already at
work, what form His presence has taken, and what earthen vessels He
has selected to communicate 'the working of a divine power'" (Walter
B. T. Douglas, "Reaching the Unreached," RH, 16 June_1988, 20). This
statement represents a departure from the method of approach and the
presuppositions behind that approach of Adventist mission in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century, when colonialism was seen as
"God's providence" for the facilitation of the missionary task (Sten
1903, "Sermon by Elder L. R. Conradi, S.D.A. Church, Oakland, Calif.,
Sunday March 29, 1903. 10:30 A. M.," RG 0, GCAr, 8), and the attitude
toward those in non-Christian, tribal groups was to "educate,
civilize, Christianize" (FMB Pro, 2 December 1894, RG 48, GCAr). That
Seventh-day Adventists were prepared to allow the possibility of the
presence of some divine "light" in such situations, at least in theory
if not in practice, is revealed by reference to the following: GC
Bulletin. 1901, 434; S. N. Haskell, "Could the Heathen Nations Have
Had the Gospel and the Lord Have Come Years Ago?" RH, 23 February
1892, 121; idem. "Religious Rites and Other Customs of the Matabeles,"
RH, 27 November 1894, 746; Uriah Smith, "Lighteth Every Man,” RH, 18
May 1897, 312.
 352

the official pronouncements of the church.

Mission and Contemporary Structure

If the reorganization of the administrative structure of the

church was motivated by concern for the facilitation of mission, and

if the purpose of organization is still the same today, then it is

past time when the church should take a long look at its priorities

and give attention to the place that mission holds in the church and

its implications for structure. Some have been making a remarkable

effort to help the church become aware of the centrality of its

mission to the world. They have been far too few, however. Their

voices have too often been drowned out in the clamor of theological

and organizational debate. Why maintain a structure which is based on

a commitment to mission when it seems more important to maintain that

structure than to demonstrate the commitment to mission by thorough

theoretical and practical restatement and innovation? Do message,

mission, and structure still go hand in hand, or has there been a

discontinuity somewhere which should be reflected in the structure of

the church? Alternatively, has the perpetuation of structure taken

priority over the message and mission of the denomination? Is mission

being delimited, and its methods determined by the need to perpetuate

the structure? The research of this dissertation indicates that there

is no historical or theological rationale for such a situation in the

Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Even if the Seventh-day Adventist Church were able to produce

some well-researched ecclesiological thought, and some of its emphases

in ecclesiology attain to a more even balance between ontological and

 35 3

functional categories, it is doubtful that the church would ever give

up the primacy of mission as its fundamental reason for organization.

Too much of Seventh-day Adventist history and theology finds its

raison d'etre in the primacy of the church's mission. The church has

been called into existence for "missionary purposes," and it is

organized "for mission service.

As was the case in the years immediately before reorganization

in 1901, there are some signs that all is not well with the church's

missionary enterprize. The church does not appear to be sending as

O
many cross cultural missionaries as it was just a few years ago. In

^-Gottfried Oosterwal, "Mission in a New Key," Spectrum (Summer

1971): 13; Seventh-day Adventists Believe. 144.

^In 1971 Oosterwal said that "The Adventist church is the

most widespread single Protestant missionary movement in the world,
with the greatest number of overseas missionaries (approximately
2,500). This church, moreover, continues to grow rapidly and
regularly and has seen no drop in the number of missionaries sent out
each year” (Oosterwal, "Mission in a New Key," 17). By 1988 he can no
longer say that such is the case on any count except that, in
comparison to most other religious bodies, church membership continues
to grow rapidly. Even so that growth is largely confined to what were
traditionally referred to as "regions beyond," and not to the
traditional "homelands." See 125th Statistical Report'. 24-25. The
trend in the number of intra-division missionaries being sent
overseas each year is downward, according to the church's official
report. That report indicates that since 1980, the average annual
contingent of intra- and inter-division missionaries has been 284.
Between 1971 and 1980, the average annual contingent was 349, and
between 1961 and 1970, it was 347. Not only do the statistics
indicate a sharp decline in the number of missionaries sent cross-
culturally in the 1980s, but those statistics, since 1978, have
included intra-division missionaries. Before 1978, only inter­
division missionaries were counted. See 125th Statistical Report, 2.
For the sake of comparison, reference is here made to North American
personnel being sent overseas and the status of missionary zeal in the
Seventh-day Adventist Church in that part of the world. Statistics
indicate that between 1973 and 1985 Southern Baptists in the United
States increased their missionary contingent from 2,507 to 3,346, a
rise of 33 percent; Wycliffe Bible Translators increased from 2,200 to
3,022, a rise of 37 percent; Youth with a Mission increased from 1,009
 354

addition, at a time when many evangelical missionary-sending

organizations evaluate their missionary task anthropologically in

terms of unreached people groups, the Seventh-day Adventist Church

has, until very recently, evaluated its missionary success

geographically.^

Seventh-day Adventists have continued to assume that the

greatest barriers to mission are theological, but some now recognize

that the greatest barriers to mission are cultural.2 Uniformity in

the name of unity has been the methodological presupposition for

to 1,741, a rise of 73 percent; New Tribes Mission increased from 701

to 1,438, a rise of 105 percent; Assemblies of God increased from 967
to 1,237, a rise of 26 percent; while Seventh-day Adventists, now
sixth on the list, decreased from 1,318 to 1,052, a drop of 20
percent. Samuel Wilson and John Siewert, eds., Mission Handbook:
North American Protestant Ministries Overseas. (Monrovia, Calif:
Missions Advanced Research and Communications Center, 1986), 601-2.
From 1968 to 1972 the Adventist Church sent 1,205 missionaries
overseas from North America; 1973-1977, 957 missionaries; 1978-1982,
814 missionaries; and 1983-1987, 729 missionaries. The number of
missionaries sent in the last five years is only 60 percent of the
number sent between 1968 and 1972. The number sent in 1987 (123) was
only 51 percent of the number sent in 1967 (237). The statistics for
the number of North American missionaries sent overseas since 1967
were obtained in a telephone conversation with Eunice Rozenia,
Director of the Office of Missionary Records, Secretariat, General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Washington, D.C., 14 September
1988. Consideration of all available statistics indicates that there
has been a decrease in the number of personnel in the Seventh-day
Adventist missionary contingent in the 1980s.

^Ralph D. Winter, "Unreached Peoples Update: Where Are We

Now," World Evangelization 15 (March-April 1988): 4-5; idem, "The
Unfinished Task: A New Perspective," World Evangelization 15 (March-
April 1988): 9-12; Gottfried Oosterwal, "The Church in the World"
(second lecture in a series of four delivered at the "Summit Strategy
for Evangelism," held at Glacier View, Colo., 6-12 April 1979), 9.
See also 125th Statistical Report. 36-37. The appointment of the
Global Strategy Coordinating Committee may herald a new era in the way
in which Seventh-day Adventists evaluate their impending missionary
task and past success.

20osterwal, "The Church in the World," 11.

 35 5

mission.1 While Seventh-day Adventists have become one of the most

ethnically diverse Christian denominations in the world, they remain,

not only in danger of failing to respond adequately to the changes

that cultural diversity has brought, but they are even in peril of

refusing to acknowledge that diversity necessitates structural

adaptation. To remain viable, change should not only be respected, it

must be anticipated.2 The implication of this study is that Seventh-

day Adventists can examine their theological presuppositions and

positions which inform church structure and decide which are to take

priority.^

-*-See, for example, Richard Rice, "Dominant Themes in Adventist

Theology," Spectrum 10 (March 1980): 58-59; Walter R. Beach, "More on
Preserving Unity Worldwide," RH, 27 December 1979, 12-13. In 1984,
Neal Wilson called for unity by appealing to the church as follows:
"The General Conference is not something isolated from administration
and leadership. It must not become just a 'United Nations General
Assembly,' or a Council of Seventh-day Adventist Churches. It must
have the ability to influence and motivate and also require
accountability. The church must remain united, and this requires
strong, centralized authority derived from all its parts" (Neal C.
Wilson, "The Rationale for a 'Special Relationship,’" Spectrum 15
[December 1984], 24).

^Rosado, "Deceptive Theology," 11.

^In Seventh-dav Adventists Believe, five major functions of

church organization are listed. They are: "worship and exhortation,"
"Christian fellowship," "instruction in the Scriptures,"
"administering of the divine ordinances," and "worldwide proclamation
of the gospel" (Seventh-dav Adventists Believe. 21). Fundamental
belief number five indicates that the church is "a community of
believers who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior," "the people of
God," "called out from the world," joined together "for worship, for
fellowship, for instruction in the Word, for the celebrations of the
Lord's Supper, for service to all mankind, and for the worldwide
proclamation of the gospel," "God's family," "the body of Christ," and
"the bride" (ibid., 134). Many of these categories describe what the
church is. Those categories which describe what the church does--
worship, fellowship, instruction, celebration, and proclamation--are
the categories which are specifically applied as the functions of
organization. Organization is still not recognized as an expression
 35 6

Conclusion

Many implications could be derived from a study of the history

and principles of reorganization of the administrative structure of

the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the years 1888-1903. The issues

that have been discussed in this chapter are the need for flexibility

in administrative structures, the need for an undergirding

ecclesiology as the basis for the structures, and the primacy of

mission as the organizing principle which calls forth structures

appropriate for the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Flexibility of administrative structures is needed in the

Seventh-day Adventist Church so that the continuing

internationalization of the church can be accommodated and the

missionary enterprise of the church can be facilitated on a global

scale. The possibility of flexibility is permitted by the

ecclesiological functionalism of the church, the commitment of Ellen

White to the need for change when necessary, and the priority of

principle over form on the part of those who were involved in the

process of reorganization in 1901-1903.

The contrasting organizational viewpoints of Jones and his

associates and Daniells and his associates are indicative of the

effect that ecclesiological stance, or lack of it, may have on

organizational reform in the church. An urgent need for the church to

clarify its ecclesiological perspective still exists. There is need

also for the church to explicate a hermeneutic for the writings of

Ellen White if it hopes to understand correctly her themes and

of the ontological nature of the church.

 357

emphases relative to organization and its structures.

Along with that goes the need for the church to determine

whether its commitment to global mission is to be the organizing

principle which is ultimately determinative of its structural form, or

if another concern, such as the need for unity in the church, is to be

that principle. It is my contention that the implication of the

process of reorganization at the beginning of the twentieth century is

that mission,is that organizing principle. It is up to the church,

however, to decide whether it is willing to maintain its commitment to

global mission and find structures which best facilitate the

fulfillment of its mandate and the return of Christ, or focus on

another principle such as unity.

 CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The structures of the Seventh-day Adventist Church were

reorganized in 1901-1903 in order to accommodate the growth and

facilitate the missionary endeavor of the church. Those reorganized

structures were not closely bound to a formally defined ecclesiology.

Therefore, it has been the contention of this study that the

possibility of modifying the denominational structures remains,

especially in the light of the continuing internationalization of the

church.

In exploring this thesis, the purposes of this study have

been:

1. To examine the historical precursors of reorganization in the

Seventh-day Adventist Church during the period 1888-1903.

2. To analyze the historical data in order to inductively discover

those reasons and principles which culminated in reorganization in

1901-1903.

3. To ascertain how those reasons and principles were related to

significant factors such as soteriology, ecclesiology,

eschatological vision, and missionary consciousness in the

Seventh-day Adventist Church.

358
 35 9

4. To apply the findings of the historical research to the

continuously changing situation of the contemporary Seventh-day

Adventist Church, with particular reference to its

internationalization.

This study has found that the years 1888-1903 were years of

unprecedented growth in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Not only

was the denomination experiencing outstanding numerical growth, but it

was also expanding institutionally, organizationally, and

geographically. At no other time in its history has there been a

period of fifteen years when the denomination has witnessed multi-

lateral growth to the same extent that it did in that period.

The growth of the church came about as it focused its

attention on its missionary mandate. While Seventh-day Adventists had

originally held more to a centripetal perspective on mission, their

understanding of their missionary task had undergone considerable

evolution during the 1860s and 1870s. By the latter half of the 1870s

their missionary focus had become centrifugal. Not only were

increasing numbers of Seventh-day Adventist missionaries leaving the

shores of North America to go to the "regions beyond," but they were

doing so with a sense of optimism and urgency. Their conception of

the mission of the church and that urgency with which the missionary

task was to be executed arose from a vibrant eschatological vision.

The evangelization of the world was considered to be attainable. It

was anticipated that the return of Christ would occur within the life­

span of those who had experienced "great disappointment" in 1844.

Despite the optimism of the denomination, however, its

 36 0

administrative structures and methods were not equipped to cope with

either the task it had set itself or the growth that resulted. Lack

of role clarity between the various organizations, continuing

centralization of decision making prerogative, financial shortage,

dispute over the purpose and control of institutions, the question of

the authority of the General Conference, and competition for scarce

resources between the church in North America and the management of

the expanding missionary enterprize of the church arose as a

consequence of the unprecedented success that the church had

encountered as it responded to its commitment to preach the gospel to

the world. The rapid growth of the church and its ventures overseas

had rendered the organizational structures that had been established

in the 1860s inadequate and antiquated.

There were some attempts to alleviate the administrative

crises prior to 1901. In North America, a plan to divide the

geographical territory into districts was implemented. Innovative

responses to the inadequacy of the administrative structures were

conceived in the context of and in response to the needs of the

"mission fields." In South Africa, A. T. Robinson integrated the

auxiliary organizations into the conference structure of the church.

In Australia, W. C. White and A. G. Daniells devised and organized a

union conference which incorporated Australia, New Zealand, New

Guinea, and the islands of the South Pacific. The organization of the

Australasian Union Conference meant that there was now an additional

level of organization (other than a local conference or the General

Conference) that had a constituency. The union had executive powers

 36 1

which were granted by the levels of organization "below" it and not by

the General Conference.

In 1901 the innovations begun in South Africa and perfected in

Australia were used as models for the reorganization of the

denomination as a whole. Those models were appropriate for the church

at that stage of its development since they had been conceived in

response to needs which arose as the church expanded in missionary

situations.

The principles which guided the process of reorganization were

never systematically explicated. Through analysis of primary resource

documents in the course of this study, five essential principles of

reorganization have been discovered, however. Those principles were:

(1) the need to hold unity and diversity in balance; (2)

representation; (3) legitimization of authority; (4) simplicity; and

(5) adaptability. Although these principles were those which guided

the church in 1901, confrontation between A. G. Daniells and J. H.

Kellogg in mid-1902, and the conflict over the form of organization

which escalated from that time forward, resulted in a change of

perspective towards those principles on the part of Daniells and those

associated with him. By 1903 the tendency was toward emphasis on

unity rather than diversity, representation rather than participation,

executive authority rather than advisory authority, complexity rather

than simplicity, and rigidity rather than adaptability.

The main reason why there was no delineation of the

fundamental principles which guided reorganization was that there was

no systematic theological statement on the nature of the church from a

 36 2

Seventh-day Adventist perspective which could serve as a basis for

such principles. Rather, the present study has found that it was the

eschatological-missiological presuppositions of Daniells and his

associates which formed a basis for the derivation of structural

forms. Although eschatological-missiological presuppositions were

foundational to the administrative structures that were adopted by the

church, the relationship of those presuppositions to structural form

was not explicitly stated. The structures themselves may have arisen

out of the sense of duty and divine mandate that was characteristic of

the church in the 1890s, but at no time did the denomination formulate

a rigid ecclesiological stance that necessitated an inflexible

structural response.

Daniells and his close associates were not alone in their zeal

for reorganization. A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner, and W. W. Prescott,

together with many of the denomination's medical personnel, were also

committed to the need to reorganize the administrative structures of

the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but for different reasons. Their

agenda for reform was not formulated on the basis of an

eschatological-missiological foundation as was the case with Daniells

and his associates. Theirs was a christocentrlc-soteriological

foundation. On the basis of the theological data that they had

selected to substantiate their position, they promoted principles of

organization and structural forms which were more congregational in

nature. Their ideas were rejected by the denomination in 1903,

however. The expanding missionary enterprize of the church was just

too powerful a motivation to be subordinated to other concerns.

 36 3

The implications which arise from the study of the reasons and

principles for reorganization in the years 1888-1903 are numerous.

This study has emphasized three of those implications:

1. The primacy of mission as the reason for organization in the

Seventh-day Adventist Church. Structures were reorganized in

1901-1903 specifically so that the denominational vision of a

world-wide proclamztion of the gospel could be facilitated. While

the study does not suggest that mission should be the only

principle of organization, it does urge the church to consider

whether mission is to continue to be its primary organizing

principle or whether it wishes some other consideration to take

priority. Certainly reflection on the process of reorganization

in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century

indicates that commitment to the mission of the church was

foundational for the structures as they were conceived at that

time.

2. The need for an undergirding ecclesiology which gives adequate

attention to a theology of mission as the basis for administrative

structures. This implication arises from the failure of the

church in 1901-1903 to provide a well-defined ecclesiological

foundation for structural reform. Jones and his associates

actually were more successful in that regard than was the

denomination at large. That is not to say that the denomination

did not have an ecclesiological perspective. In contrast to the

perspective of Jones and his associates, however, the

ecclesiological thinking which determined the structures that were

 364

adopted by the church was more concerned with the function of the

church than with the ontology of the church. The need for

clarification of ecclesiological perspective still exists. The

Seventh-day Adventist Church should make a decided effort to

integrate both functional and ontological perspectives in a

distinctive Seventh-day Adventist ecclesiology which gives

adequate attention to its missionary mandate.

3. The need for flexibility and adaptability in administrative

structures. This implication arises in the context of the two

implications stated above. Seventh-day Adventists are free to

adjust their structures according to their ecclesiological agenda

and the contingencies required by their commitment to world

evangelization. A. G. Daniells, W. C. White, W. A. Spicer, and

Ellen White were committed to that position. To restate the

thesis of this study: insofar as the structures of the Seventh-day

Adventist Church were reorganized in order to facilitate the

missionary endeavor of the church, and insofar as those

reorganized structures were not closely bound to a formally

defined ecclesiology, the possibility of modifying the structures

remains, especially in the light of the continuing

internationalization of the church.

In the course of this study it has become apparent that there

is much careful investigation that remains to be done. I would

therefore like to make some suggestions for further research in the

hope that those who follow may continue the work that has only just

begun in this dissertation.

 36 5

In-depth historical research needs to be conducted in the

following areas: (1) the role of Ellen G. White in the reorganization

of the administrative structures of the church; (2) the role of other

key persons such as W. C. White, A. G. Daniells, A. T. Jones, E. J.

Waggoner, and J. H. Kellogg in the process of reorganization; (3) the

organizational developments subsequent to 1903 (for example, 1903-

1918) need documentation and analysis; (4) the relationship between

Ellen G. White and W. C. White and its implications for

reorganization; (5) a hermeneutic for the writings of Ellen G. White

and the use of her writings as they relate to mission, organization,

etc.; and (6) the relationship between theological positions held by

Seventh-day Adventists (such as A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner) and

contemporary theological developments outside the denomination.

Theologically oriented research projects which could be

conducted include (in addition to the last suggestion above): (1)

studies in the area of Seventh-day Adventist ecclesiology, especially

insofar as such ecclesiological reflection could impact contemporary

administrative structures; (2) the ecclesiology in the writings of

Ellen G. White--an important subject which has far-reaching

ramifications for Seventh-day Adventist organization.

The subject of Seventh-day Adventist mission invites

considerable attention from serious scholars. Needed research

includes: (1) historical perspectives on the theology of Seventh-day

Adventist mission which build on the work commenced by Damsteegt; (2)

a contemporary theology of Seventh-day Adventist mission; and (3)

anthropological and sociological studies which draw attention to the

 366

need for adaptation in missionary methodology and administrative

practices.

Each of the suggested of research could inform £h#

institutionalization of sffUefcUfei. Which ate appropriate for an

international church that can celebrate the success of its missionary

enterprise while, at the same time, anticipating cooperation with the

Holy Spirit in the task of disciple-making.

 SELECTED fliBLHMAFHY

This selected bibliography of sources consulted in the CdUtse

of the study is divided into two sections: unpublished materials (page

367) and published works (page 378). The unpublished materials are

listed: (1) In an essay which describes manuscript and correspondence

collections that were consulted (page 367), or (2) under the heading

of "papers, theses, and dissertations" (page 374). The published

works are listed alphabetically.

Unpublished Materials

Essay on Manuscript and Correspondence

Collections

This essay describes relevant unpublished sources held in

various archival collections which were consulted in the course of

research.

Archives of the General Conference

of Seventh-dav Adventists
Washington. D.C.

Unpublished primary sources housed at the General Conference

Archives in Washington, D.C., were used extensively in the research.

The archives are arranged in Record Groups. A list of Record Group

numbers and names is available from the Office of Archives and

Statistics at the General Conference.

36 7
 368

Minutes and proceedings

The following sets of minutes and proceedings for the time

periods indicated were examined exhaustively:

1. The Minutes of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference

Committee Meetings, 1887-1903. Stenographic draft copies of some

of those meetings are also available. They are in Record Group 1:

General Conference Committee.

2. The Proceedings of the General Conference Association, 1887-1901.

They are in Record Group 3: General Conference Association.

3. Proceedings of the Seventh-day Adventist Foreign Mission Board,

1889-1903. After 13 February 1899, the proceedings are titled

Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the Foreign Mission Board

of Seventh-day Adventists. They are in Record Group 48: Foreign

Mission Board.

4. Minutes of the Seventh-day Adventist Medical Missionary and

Benevolent Association, 1893-1903. In 1896 the name of the

association was changed to the International Medical Missionary

and Benevolent Association. They are in Record Group 77.

5. In addition to the published records of the General Conference

sessions found in the General Conference Bulletins, which are

available in the Archives, some of the session records of the

recording secretary for the sessions in 1887-1905 are also

available. The complete stenographic transcripts of the 1901 and

1903 sessions were particularly valuable for the purposes of the

research. They include sermons and discussion on the floor of the

session which were not included in the published bulletins. They

 36 9

are found in "G.C. Session Recording Secretary's Transcripts and

Notes," Record Group 0: General Conference Sessions.

Correspondence files

The correspondence which proved to be of most relevance to the

research came primarily from two Record Groups:

1. Record Group 11: Presidential. In this collection are to be found

letter books of outgoing correspondence of 0. A. Olsen, G. A.

Irwin, and A. G. Daniells. They are contained in the file

"Outgoing Letters 1887-1914." Correspondence addressed to the

office of the president is found in a file titled "Incoming

Letters" which is arranged chronologically between the years 1889

and 1914. Letters in this file come from most of the

administrative leaders of the church during the period and include

letters from W. C. White, G. I. Butler, 0. A. Olsen, S. N.

Haskell, I. H. Evans, W. A. Spicer, E. R. Palmer, C. P. Bollman,

A. J. Breed, M. H. Brown, A. T. Jones, J. H. Kellogg, W. T. Knox,

W. W. Prescott, E. J. Waggoner, and many others. Case files for

J. H. Kellogg and others contain some correspondence and are in

"Documents and Special Files, 1888-1950," Record Group 11:

Presidential.

2. Record Group 9: General and Historical. Record Group 9 contains

material not readily assignable to a specific Record Group.

However, because at one time the miscellaneous files in this

Record Group were part of the Presidential holdings, much incoming

correspondence, particularly correspondence addressed to A. G.

Daniells is to be found here.

 37 0

Some correspondence from RG 21: Secretariat; RG 31: Treasury;

RG 29: Archives and Statistics; and RG 58: Ministerial Association was

also helpful.

Other resources

Many unpublished papers on a variety of topics are available

in RG 500: Monographs. Papers from that collection which were

consulted are Bert B. Beach, "Reflections on the Present

Denominational Structure," (1984); idem, "The Role of Unions in the

Framework of the Present Denominational Structure," (1983); Maren L.

Carden and Ronald Lawson, "Seventh-day Adventists in Conflict: A

Nineteenth-Century Religious Movement Meets the Twentieth Century,"

(1982); Des Cummings, Jr., and Clyde Morgan, "The Adventist Church:

Three Distinctive Experiences," (cl984); "The Public’s Attitude Toward

the Seventh-day Adventist Church: A Study Conducted by Gallup

International," (n.d.); "Transcription of Dictation Made by Donald R.

McAdams on August 16, 1976, Based on Handwritten Notes Made a Few

Hours Earlier with Mr. Leonard Smith," (1976); and Francis W. Wernick,

"Philosophy of the Role of the General Conference," (1984).

In Record Group 11: Presidential are the Records of the

Commission on the Role and Function of Denominational Organizations

(1985, Chairman F. W. Wernick). In Record Group 21: Secretariat is

the Report of the Survey Commissions Held in the Central European

Division in 1971, and records of the number of missionaries sent

overseas. Other statistical facts regarding the number of persons

sent overseas and the countries entered are found in the Claude Conrad

Collection, Record Group 29: Archives and Statistics.

 371

Several unpublished papers and compilations by Bert Haloviak

which proved invaluable in the research are also available at the

General Conference Archives. They include, "Documents on Church

Organization: 1883-1907," (1984); "Documents on Departmental

Organization: 1898-1907," (1986); "Documents on Union Conferences;

1886-1905," (1986); and "From Righteousness to Holy Flesh: Disunity

and the Perversion of the 1888 Message," (1983).

Ellen G. White Estate Branch

Office. Andrews University.
Berrien Springs. Mich.

Most of the research which related to Ellen G. White and her

family was done in the Ellen G. White Estate branch office at Andrews

University. Although most of the documents which are housed there are

also located at the headquarters office in Washington, D.C., only

those resources which were not available at Andrews University are

listed below under the White Estate office in Washington, D.C.

The main resources for the research were the "Letter File" and

the "Manuscript File" of Ellen G. White. All extant letters and

manuscripts (mostly carbon copies of the original) of Ellen White

between 1844 and 1915 are available in these invaluable collections.

Some of the letters show editorial work in Ellen White's handwriting.

Letters to Olsen, Irwin, Daniells, W. C. White, and other church

leaders give insight into Ellen White's thinking, and contextual

concerns during the period. A card index, organized by subject

categories is available to direct the researcher to pertinent

material. Her manuscripts often addressed specific issues germane to

the research. Where possible the original letter or manuscript has

 372

been consulted and quoted in preference to later reprints in the form

of "testimonies" or compilations of her writings.

Some incomplete correspondence files of other church leaders

are also housed in the Andrews University branch office. They include

selected outgoing correspondence of L. R. Conradi (1885-1933), A. G.

Daniells (1891-1903), S.N. and Hetty Haskell (1892-1901), 0. A. Olsen

(1892-1897), Percy T. Magan (1902-1903), and W. W. Prescott (1892-

1922).

Particularly valuable are indexes and various resource

documents that are available at the Research Center as aids to

research. Apart from the 35,000-word Laser Disc Concordance to the

published works of Ellen White, there is also an index to the General

Conference Bulletins (1887-1915), an index of the periodical articles

written by Ellen White, a pamphlet file index, an obituary file and

index, a question and answer file, an Ellen G. White bibliographical

index, and an extensive document file from which resources were drawn

in the research.

Ellen G. White Estate Office.

Washington. D.C.

The White Estate Offices in Washington, D.C., house all the

outgoing letter and manuscript files of Ellen White, and the other

files and indexes listed above. In addition, there is an "Incoming

Letter" file. This file contains extant correspondence to both Ellen

G. White and W. C. White from most of the church leaders of the

period, and numerous other persons as well. It is a very valuable

resource. Persons who have been quoted by means of letters in this

 373

file include A. G. Daniells, 0. A. Olsen, S. N. Haskell, G. A. Irwin,

G. I. Butler, and C. C. Crisler.

Ellen White was a prolific letter writer and so was her son,

W. C. White. His outgoing letter books contain numerous letters

relevant to the research. Those letter books are indexed by title and

date of writing.

A recent addition to the resources available at the White

Estate in Washington, D.C., has been a computerized concordance of all

the unpublished works of Ellen White. This resource which may prove

itself more valuable than any other existing aid for research into the

history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the role of Ellen

White in particular, is being prepared for distribution.

Seventh-dav Adventist Heritage Center

Andrews University, Berrien
Springs. Mich.

The resources available in the Heritage Center are extensive.

Apart from collections of published pamphlets, magazines, journals,

and bulletins, there are many private collections containing scattered

references to church organization and reorganization. Some individual

collections that have been consulted are those under the names of W.

A. Spicer, J. H. Kellogg, J. L. McElhany, A. W. Spalding, and C. H.

Watson. An extensive obituary file with over 92,000 entries was most

helpful.

The following unpublished research papers available in the

Heritage Center have been consulted in the course of the research:

Larry Ammon, "A History of the Organization of the Seventh-day

Adventist Church," 1979; John T. Baldwin, "The Basis of the Seventh-

 374

day Adventist Form of Authority in Church Organization," 1963; Erich

W. Baumgartner, "Church Growth and Church Structure: 1901

Reorganization in the Light of the Expanding Missionary Enterprize of

the Seventh-day Adventist Church,"1987; idem, "Ecclesiology and the

Mission of the Church," 1987; idem, "Historical Reflections on

Seventh-day Adventist Foreign Missions," 1977; Carl Coffman, "The

Development of an Understanding of the Message of the Third Angel of

Revelation 14:9-12 from 1844," 1972; Robert E. Northrop, "Organization

in the Seventh-day Adventist Church: Sacred Shrine or Means to an

End?" 1971; James W. Zachrison, "The Development of Dr. J. H.

Kellogg's Theological Ideas up to 1903," 1973.

Papers, Theses, and Dissertations

Anderson, Carl D. "The History and Evolution of Seventh-day Adventist

Church Organization." Ph.D. dissertation, American
University, 1960.

Andreasen, Niels-Erik. "Royal Authority and Prophetic Ministry in the

Old Testament." Paper presented at the Theological
Consultation, Glacier View, Colo., 15-19 August 1980.

Arthur, David T. "'Come Out of Babylon': A Story of Millerite

Separatism and Denominationalism, 1840-1865." Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Rochester, 1970.

Bauer, Bruce. "Congregational and Mission Structures and How the

Seventh-day Adventist Church Has Related to Them." D.Miss.
dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1982.

Baumgartner, Erich W. "Church Growth and Church Structure: 1901

Reorganization in the Light of the Expanding Missionary
Enterprize of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Term Paper
Prepared for Andrews University, 1987.

________. "Ecclesiology and the Mission of the Church." Term Paper

Prepared for Andrews University, 1987.

"Historical Reflections on Seventh-day Adventist Foreign

Missions." Term Paper Prepared for Andrews University, 1977.
 375

Beach, Bert B. "Reflections on the Present Denominational Structure."

Paper Prepared for the Commission on the Role and Function of
Denominational Organizations, General Conference of Seventh-
day Adventists, 1984.

________. "The Role of Unions in the Framework of the Present

Denominational Structure." Paper Prepared for the Commission
on the Role and Function of Denominational Organizations,
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1983.

Birch, Alfred E. "A Pragmatic and Theological Evaluation of

Management by Objectives in Seventh-day Adventist Conference
Administration." D.Min. project report, Andrews University,
1980.

Boyd, Timothy N. "Apocalypticism in Contemporary Protestantism in

Historical Perspective." Ph.D. dissertation, Southwestern
Baptist Theological Seminary, 1980.

Bozarth, Donald C. "An Investigation of the Development of the

Concept of Seventh-day Adventist Missions, 1848-74. M.A.
thesis, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1956.

Bradford, Charles E. "A Theology of Church Organization and

Administration." Paper presented at the Theological
Constitution, Glacier View, Colo., 15-19 August 1980.

Burns, Stewart. "The Populist Movement and the Cooperative

Commonwealth: The Politics of Non-Reformist Reform." Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California, 1984.

Coffen, Richard W. "Toward an SDA Agenda on Ecclesiology."

Manuscript prepared for ASRS, 1984.

Colvin, George W . , Jr. "The Women, the Church and the Courts: Sex
Discrimination and the First Amendment." Ph.D. dissertation,
Claremont Graduate School, 1986.

Dederen, Raoul. "Authoritative Teachings and Decisions in the

Seventh-day Adventist Church." Paper presented at the
Theological Consultation, Glacier View, Colo., 15-19 August,
1980.

Delafield, Trevor J. "A Conceptual Model of Seventh-day Adventist

Organization for the Local Church." D.Min. project report,
Andrews University, 1978.

Douglas, Walter B. T. "The Theologian as Administrator: The

Reformation and After." Paper presented at the Theological
Consultation, Glacier View, Colo., 15-19 August 1980.
 376

Dudley, Roger L., and Des Cummings, Jr. "A Study of Factors Relating
to Church Growth in the North American Division of Seventh-
day Adventists. A research study commissioned by the North
American Division of Seventh-day Adventists, April 1981.

Gallagher, Jonathan. "Believing Christ's Return: An Interpretative

Analysis of the Dynamics of Christian Hope." Ph.D.
dissertation, University of St. Andrews, 1982.

Gerhardt, Johann H. "Development, Teaching, and Evaluation of a

Course in Church Leadership and Administration for the
Theological Seminary, Marienhoehe, Germany." D.Min. project
report, Andrews University, 1986.

Graham, Roy E. "Ellen G. White: An Examination of Her Position and

Role in the Seventh-day Adventist Church." Ph.D. thesis,
University of Birmingham, 1977.

Graybill, Ronald D. "Ellen White's Role in the Resolution of

Conflicts in Adventist History." Paper presented at the
Theological Consultation, Glacier View, Colo., 15-19 August
1980.

________. "The Power of Prophecy: Ellen G. White and the Women

Religious Founders of the Nineteenth Century." Ph.D.
dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 1983.

Hackett, Willis J. "The Search for Authority and Doctrinal Unity in

the Church." Paper presented at the Theological Consultation,
Glacier View, Colo., 15-19 August 1980.

Haloviak, Bert. "SDAs and Organization, 1844-1907." Paper presented

at the Central California Campmeeting, August 1987.

Jorgensen, Gilbert A. "An 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, Seventh-day
Adventist Theological Seminary, 1949.

Kurtz, Arnold. "A Response to Elder Charles Bradford’s Paper ’A

Theology of Church Organization and Administration.'"
Presented at the Theological Consultation, Glacier View,
Colo., 15-19 August 1980.

Mustard, Andrew B. "James White and the Development of Seventh-day

Adventist Organization 1844-1881." Ph.D. dissertation,
Andrews University, 1987.

Oosterwal, Gottfried. "The Church in the World." Second lecture in a

series of four delivered at the "Summit Strategy for
Evangelism," Glacier View, Colo., 6-12 April 1979.
 377

________. "The Seventh-day Adventist Church in Mission, 1919-1979:

Part 1--1919-1939." Paper obtained from the author, Andrews
University, Berrien Springs, Mich.

________. "The SDA Church in the 1980's." Paper presented at the

Theological Consultation, Glacier View, Colo., 15-19 August
1980.

Patzer, Jere D. "An Evaluation of Current Procedures of Local

Conference Constituency Sessions with Recommendations for
Possible Improvement." D. Min. project report, Andrews
University, 1984.

President's Review Commission. "Role and Function of Denominational

Organizations." Report prepared for Neal C. Wilson,
President, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 18
July 1984.

Provonsha, Jack W. "A Response to Elder Charles Bradford's Paper 'A

Theology of Church Organization and Administration.'" Paper
presented at the Theological Consultation, Glacier View,
Colo., 15-19 August 1980.

Robertson, John J. "Arthur Grosvenor Daniells: The Effect of

Australasia upon the Man and His Work as Revealed through
Correspondence with W. C. White and Ellen G. White.” M. A.
thesis, Andrews University, 1966.

Rock, Calvin B. "Structures for Renewal." Paper presented at the

Theological Consultation, Glacier View, Colo., 15-19 August
1980.

Schantz, Borge. "The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Missionary

Thought: Contemporary Appraisal." Ph.D. dissertation, Fuller
Theological Seminary, 1983.

Schneider, Robert A. "The Senior Secretary: Rufus Anderson and the

ABCFM, 1810-1880." Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University,
1980.

Schwarz, Richard W. "John Harvey Kellogg: American Health Reformer."

Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1964.

Special Commission on Church Structure. "Church Organization

Structure In-Depth Study." Vol 1, "Findings and
Recommendations, June 1, 1983." Commission report prepared
for the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,
1983.
 378

Teel, Charles, Jr. "Withdrawing Sect, Accommodating Church,

Prophesying Remnant: Dilemmas in the Institutionalization of
Adventism." Paper presented at the Theological Consultation,
Glacier View, Colo., 15-19 August 1980.

Waldner, Mike M. "Christian Mission in Eschatological Perspective:

Promoting the Dynamic of Eschatology for Missionary
Motivation." D.Miss. dissertation, Fuller Theological
Seminary, 1987.

Wernick, Francis W. "Philosophy of the Role of the General

Conference." Paper Prepared for the Commission on the Role
and Function of Denominational Organizations, General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1984.

Published Materials

Aamodt, Terrie D. "Laity Transforms North Pacific Constitution."

Spectrum 15 (December 1984): 6-12.

Aamodt, Terrie D. , Curt Dewees, Jay Jennings, and Dan Kaempff. "The
Harris Pine Bankruptcy: Too Much Too Soon?" Spectrum 17
(August 1987): 7-8.

Ackerman, V. S. "God's Priority: Organize to Evangelize."

Fundamentalist Journal 2 (March 1983): 9-10.

"African Delegates Make Themselves Heard at General Conference

Session." Visitor. 1 August 1985, 6.

Aghiorgoussis, Maximus. "The Church as a Presupposition for the

Proclamation of the Gospel." Greek Orthodox Theological
Review 25 (1980): 371-76.

Ahlstrom, Sydney E. A Religious History of the American People. New

Haven: Yale University Press, 1972.

Amundson, Earl W. “Don't Eliminate the Unions." Spectrum 15 (May

1984): 52-54.

An Authentic Interview between Elder G. W. Amadon. Elder A. C.

Bordeau. and Dr. John Harvey Kellogg in Battle Creek.
Michigan, on October 7th 1907. [Riverside, Calif.: The
Gathering Call], n.d.

Andersen, Wilhelm. Towards a Theology of Mission: A Study of the

Encounter Between the Missionary Enterprise and the Church and
Its Theology. London: SCM Press, 1955.
 379

Anderson, Gerald H. "American Protestants in Pursuit of Mission:

1886-1986." International Bulletin of Missionary Research 12
(July 1988): 98-118.

Anderson, Gerald H., and T. F. Stransky, eds. Mission Trends. 5

vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-81.

Anderson, Godfrey T. "A Church Is Born 1850-1875." Review and

Herald. Anniversary Issue, November 1975, 8-10.

________. "Make Us a Name." Adventist Heritage. July 1974, 28-35.

________. "Sectarianism and Organization, 1846-1864." In Adventism

in America, ed. Gary Land, 36-65. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1986.

Anderson, James D., and Ezra E. Jones. The Management of Ministry.

San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978.

Anderson, Ray S. Minding God's Business. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1986.

Anderson, Rufus. Foreign Missions. Their Relations and Claims. New

York: Scribner, 1869.

Anderson, Yvonne D. "The Bible, The Bottle, and the Ballot: Seventh-
day Adventist Political Activism, 1850-1900." Adventist
Heritage 7 (Fall 1982): 38-52.

"Annual Council Action on Evangelism and Finishing God's Work."

Ministry. December 1976, 3-10.

Arzoo, George A. "Church of the People?" Spectrum 15 (December

1984): 62-63.

Association of Adventist Forums. "Change and Continuity in the

Theology of a Church." Spectrum 14 (August 1983): 40-41.

_______ . "Defining Participation: A Model Conference Constitution."

Spectrum 14 (March 1984) 25-35.

________. "A Reaffirmation of purpose." Spectrum 15 (December 1984)

28-30.

________. "A Short Primer on Adventist Church Structure." Spectrum

13 (September 1982): 6-7.

Association of Adventist Forums Task Force. "A Call for an Open

Church." Spectrum 14 (March 1984): 18-24.

Aufdehar, Glenn. "125 Years of Adventist Organization." Adventist

Review. 27 November 1986, 12-14.
 380

Bacharach, Samuel B., and Edward J. Lawler. Power and Politics In

Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1981.

Bakke, Raymond J. "Strategy for Urban Mission." Theological Students

Fellowship Bulletin 8 (March-April 1984): 20-21.

________. "Urban Evangelization: A Lausanne Strategy Since 1980."

International Bulletin of Missionary Research 8 (1984): 149-
54.

Bantz, Floyd E. "Old Roles, but New Routines: A Biblical Theological

Rationale for Executive Leadership." Brethren Life and
Thought 27 (1982): 141-48.

Barclay, James S., Wilber Alexander, William A. lies, Frank L. Jones,

Winslow B. Randall, Charles S. Stokes, and N. C. Wilson.
"Organization: A Discussion of the Structure of the Seventh-
day Adventist Church." Spectrum 4 ( Spring 1972): 42-62.

Barrett, David B. "Annual Statistical Table on Global Mission: 1988."

International Bulletin of Missionary Research 12 (1988): 16-
17.

________. "Five Statistical Eras of Global Mission." Missiologv 12

(1984): 21-39.

________. "Getting Ready for Mission in the 1990s: What Should We Be

Doing to Prepare?" Missiologv 15 (1987): 3-14.

________., ed. World Christian Encyclopedia. Nairobi: Oxford

University Press, 1982.

Bartholemew, John N. "A Sociological View of Authority in Religious

Organizations." Review of Religious Research 23 (1981): 118-
32.

Basil, Douglas C. "Leadership Skills and the Crisis of Change."

Humanitas 14 (1978): 309-20.

Baum, Gregory, and Andrew Greeley. The Church as Institution. New

York: Seabury Press, 1974.

Beach, Bert. B. "Windows of Vulnerability." Adventist Review. 2

August 1984, 3-5.

Beach, Walter R. "The Church and Leadership." Adventist Review. 31

May 1979, 10-11.

________. "The Gospel Commission and the Remnant Church." In Our

Firm Foundation. 2:425-462. Washington, D.C.: Review and
Herald, 1953.
 381

________. "How the SDA Church Is Organized." Adventist Review. 19

April 1979, 14-15.

________. "More on Preserving Unity World Wide." Adventist Review.

27 December 1979, 12-13.

________. "What and Where Is the Church?" Adventist Review. 11

January 1979, 4-6.

Beach, Walter R. , and Bert B. Beach. Pattern for Progress: The Role
and Function of Church Organization. Washington, D.C.: Review
and Herald, 1985.

Beaver, R. Pierce, ed. American Missions in Bicentennial Perspective.

Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1977

________, ed. To Advance the Gospel: Selections from the Writings of

Rufus Anderson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967.

Beckford, James A. "Religious Organization: A Survey of Some Recent

Publications." Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions 29
(1984): 83-103.

Bennis, Warren G., and Burt Nanus. Leaders: The Strategies for Taking
Charge. New York: Harper and Row, 1985.

Berger, Peter L. The Sacred Canopy. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,

1969.

Berkouwer, G. C. The Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Berquist, James A. "The Structural Dilemma for Social Services in

Christian Mission: Why Theology and Function Are Pulling in
Opposite Directions." International Review .of Mission 75
(1986): 242-52.

Beyerhaus, Peter. "Evangelicals, Evangelism and Theology: A .

Missiological Assessment of the Lausanne Movement."
Evangelical Review of Theology 11 (1987): 169-85.

Beyerhaus, Peter, and Henry Lefever. The Responsible Church and the
Foreign Mission. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Bieber, David J. "Church Structure Study Committee Reports." Pacific

Union Recorder. 14 June 1982, 1.

________. "Rebuilding Church Structure: Some Other Perspectives--A

Look at the Background of the Church Structure Studies."
Pacific Union Recorder. 3 March 1986, 4-7.

Bietz, A. R. "Group Think." Adventist Review. 10 June 1982, 8-9.

 382

.
Bietz, Gordon. “Leadership in Crisis." Ministry. December 1983, 20-
22

Bigelow, I. G. 'Our Missionary Work and Why It Is Important." Review

and Herald. 9 January 1913, 4-5.

Blauw, Johannes. The Missionary Nature of the Church. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1962.

Bonk, Jon. "The Role of Affluence in the Christian Missionary

Enterprise from the West.” Missiology 14 (1986): 437-61.

Borchert, Gerald L. "The Nature of the Church: A Baptist

Perspective." American Baptist Quarterly 1 (1982): 160-67.

Borst, Diane G. , and Patrick J. Montana. Managing Non-Profit

Organizations. New York: American Management Association,
1979.

Bosch, David J. "An Emerging Paradigm for Mission." Missiology 11

(1983): 485-510.

Bowden, Henry W. "An Overview of Cultural Factors in the American

Protestant Missionary Enterprise." In American Missions in
Bicentennial Perspective, ed. R. Pierce Beaver, 40-62.
Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1977.

Bowen, T. E. "Christ and His One Church." Review and Herald. 4

September 1900, 564-65.

________ . "The Order and Organization of the Apostolic Church."

2-part series in Review and Herald. 2 May 1907, 9-10; 9 May
1907, 9-10.

Bowers, N. J. "Order in the Work of God." 2-part series in Review

and Herald. 8 May 1888, 292; 15 May 1888, 307.

Braaten, Carl. "Ecclesiological Perspectives." Covenant Quarterly 41

(August 1983): 53-58.

Bradford, Charles E. "Authority in the Church." Ministry. October

1979, 14-15.

________. "The Authority of the Church." 2-part series in Adventist

Review. 19 February 1981, 4-6; 26 February 1981, 8.

Bradley, W. P. "Creation of Our Church Organization." 6-part series

in Review and Herald. 8 February, 1951, 3-5; 15 February 1951,
4- 6; 22 February 1951, 5-7; 1 March 1951, 8-9; 15 March 1951,
5- 6; 22 March 1951, 8-10.
 383

________. "Election to Church Office." 2-part series in Review and

Herald. 14 October 1971, 9; 21 October 1971, 9.

________. "First Steps in Church Organization." Review and Herald.

22 February 1968, 16.

________. "How a Policy Is Made." Review and Herald. 4 December

1969, 18.

________. "The King's Business: Your Church--Its Organization and

Operation." 3-part series in Review and Herald. 25 February
1971, 8; 22 April 1971, 8; 6 May 1971, 10.

________. "They Called It Order." Review and Herald. 15 February

1968, 18.

________. "Types of Church Government." Review and Herald. 20 June

1968, 19.

Branson, Roy. "Adventism in Transition: The Church of the South

Emerges at New Orleans." Spectrum 16 (November 1985): 2-16.

________. "Adventists between the Times: The Shift in the Church's

Eschatology." Spectrum 8 (September 1976): 15-26.

________. "Changing Church Structure: A Modest Proposal." JD (1983):

14-22.

________. "A Church of, by, and for the People." Spectrum 15 (August
1984): 2-6.

________. "Trumpet Blasts and Hosannas: A Once and Future Adventism."

Spectrum 18 (February 1988): 29-35.

Brauer, Jerald C. Protestantism in America. Rev. ed. London: SCM

Press, 1965.

A Brief Sketch of the Origin. Progress and Principles of the Seventh-

day Adventists. Battle Creek, Mich: Review and Herald, 1888.

Brouwer, Arie R. Reformed Church Roots: Thirty-Five Formative Events.

New York: Reformed Church Press, 1977.

Brown, W. J. "The Problem of State Aid in Ghana." Review and Herald.

27 May 1971, 22-23.

Buchanan, Colin. "The Authority of Synods." Churchman: A Quarterly

Journal of Anglican Theology 95 (1981): 33-42.

Bucke, E. S., ed. The History of American Methodism. 3 vols. New

York: Abingdon Press, 1964.
 384

Buhlmann, I. Walbert. The Coming of the Third Church. Maryknoll,

N.Y.: Orbls Books, 1977.

________. "My Pilgrimage in Mission." International Bulletin of

Missionary Research 10 (1986): 104-105.

Buhlman, I. Walbert, and Waldron Scott. "Mission in the 1980's: Two

Viewpoints." Occasional Bulletin of Missionary Research 4
(1980): 98-102.

Bull, Malcolm. "The Medicalization of Adventism." Spectrum 18

(February 1988): 12-21.

Burns, Edward M . The American Idea of Mission: Concepts of National

Purpose and Destiny. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University
Press, 1957.

Butler, George I. "The Church: Its Organization, Order, and

Discipline." Review and Herald. 9 May 1907, 2.

________. "An Important Financial Plan to Help Sustain Our Foreign

Mission Work." Review and Herald. 3 January 1888, 9-10.

________. "Instruction in the Duties of Church Officers." Review and

Herald. 28 February 1888, 137-38.

________. Leadership. Battle Creek, Mich.: General Conference of

Seventh-day Adventists, 1873.

________. "Leadership." Review and Herald. 18 November 1873, 180-81.

________. "More about the General Conference Association." Review

and Herald. 3 January 1888, 9.

________. "No Church Manual." Review and Herald. 27 November 1883,

745-46.

________. "Progress in the General Conference Association Work."

Review and Herald. 14 February 1888, 104.

________. "Propriety in Connection with Our Organization." Review

and Herald. 10 March 1885, 153-54.

________ . "Thoughts on Church Government." 8-part series in Review

and Herald. 28 July 1874, 52-53; 4 August 1874, 60-61; 18
August 1874, 68-69; 25 August 1874, 76-77; 1 September 1874,
85; 8 September 1874, 92; 15 September 1874, 101; 22
September 1874, 109; 29 September 1874, 116; 13 October 1874,
124-25.

________. "Withholding of the Tithe for Use in Building Meeting

Houses." Review and Herald. 10 January 1888, 26.
 385

Butler, Jonathan. "Adventism and the American Experience." In The

Rise of Adventism, ed. Edwin S. Gaustad, 173-206. New York:
Harper and Row, 1974.

Byron, William J. "The Purpose and Nature of Leadership." New

Catholic World 223 (1980): 205-8.

Cantrell, Randolph L., James F. Krile, and George A. Donohue. "Parish

Autonomy: Measuring Denominational Differences." Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion 22 (1983): 276-87.

Capper, Leroy. "Imago Dei and Church Order." Evangelical Review of

Theology 10 (1986): 214-27.

Carner, Vern, Sakae Kubo, and Curt Rice. "Bibliographical Essay." In

The Rise of Adventism, ed. Edwin S. Gaustad, 207-317. New
York: Harper and Row, 1974.

Carner, Vern, and Gary Stanhiser, eds. The Stature of Christ. Loma
Linda, Calif.: Privately printed, 1970.

Carroll, Robert P. "Eschatological Delay in the Prophetic Tradition."

Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (1982) :
47-58.

Casey, B. "Adventism, Apocalyptic, and Mission. College People 2

(Summer 1982): 40-42.

Caviness, L. L. "Did Christ Establish a Hierarchy?" Review and

Herald. 18 January 1917, 4-5.

Cedar, Paul A. Strength in Servant Leadership. Waco, Tex.: Word

Books, 1987.

Chatfield, Joan. "Emerging Agendas in World Mission." Missiologv 10

(1982): 391-95.

"Church Structure Study Committee Is Formed." Pacific Union Recorder.

8 March 1982, 1.

Cleveland, Earl E. "Regional Union Conferences.” Spectrum 2 (Spring

1970): 41-46.

Clinton, J. Robert. Leadership Training Models. Altadena, Calif.:

Barnabas Ministries, 1984.

________. Leadership Emergence Patterns. Altadena, Calif.: Barnabas

Ministries, 1987

Clouse, Robert E. "Pentecostal Churches." The New International

Dictionary of the Christian Church., ed. J. D. Douglas. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. 763-64.
 38 6

Coffin, James N. "The Challenge of North America: How Church Leaders

See the Issues." Adventist Review. 9 August 1984, 5-9.

________. "Incumbency." Adventist Review. 28 March 1985, 16.

Cole, Stewart G. The History of Fundamentalism. Hamden, Conn.:

Archon Books, 1963.

Coll, Regina. "Power, Powerlessness, and Empowerment." Religious

Education 81 (1986): 412-23.

Colvin, George W. "Canada Considers Change in Church Structure."

Spectrum 16 (April 1985): 62-63.

________. "Explaining Participation: A Commentary." Spectrum 14

(March 1984): 36-39.

________. "G. C. Commission Plans Minor Changes." Spectrum 15

(October 1984): 63.

________. "Management Principles for Churches." Spectrum 13

(September 1982): 57-58.

"Commission Gives Report on Question of Black Unions." Review and

Herald. 17 June 1971, 32.

Conrad, Claude. "Structure of Our World Movement." 2-part series in

Ministry. March 1938, 14-16; April 1938, 11-12.

"Consolidation." Review and Herald. 8 April 1971, 23.

Cooper, Victor. "The Servant-Leader." Ministry. February 1982, 20-

21 .

Corliss, J. 0. "The Growth of Christian Missions." Review and

Herald. 8 January 1889, 21.

[________]. "International Convention of the Student Volunteer

Movement." Review and Herald. 17 February 1891, 102.

________. "The Needs of the Church." Review and Herald. 17 December

1889, 758.

Cornell, W. E. "The Volunteer Convention." Review and Herald. 15

March 1898, 174-75.

Costas, 0. E. The Church and Its Mission: A Shattering Critioue from

the Third World. Wheaton: Tyndale Press, 1974.

'
_____. The Integrity of Mission. New York: Harper and Row, 1979.
 387

Cottrell, H. W. "Christian Organization." Review and Herald. 22

October 1903, 9-10.

________. "Church Order." Review and Herald. 23 May 1907, 8-9.

________. "The Growth of Denominational Organization." Review and

Herald. 24 March 1932, 267-68.

________. "The Place of Institutional Work in Our Message." Review

and Herald. 29 June 1905, 13-14.

Cottrell, Raymond F. "The Case for an Independent North American

Division." Spectrum 13 (September 1982): 2-14.

________. "A True North American Division: Why We Can't Wait."

Spectrum 19 (August 1988): 9-11.

________. "The Varieties of Church Structure." Spectrum 14 (March

1984): 40-53.

Cottrell, Roswell. F. "The Church a Building." Review and Herald. 27

March 1888, 194.

Coveil, Ralph R . , ed. "Future of the World Christian Mission."

Missiologv 15 (1987): 3-111

Covert, William. "Conference Work." Review and Herald. 29 June 1905,

12-13.

Crapol, Edward P. America for Americans: Economic Nationalism and

Anglophobia in the Late Nineteenth Century. Westport, Conn.:
Greenwood Press, 1973.

Crisler, C. C. Organization: Its Character. Purpose. Place, and

Development in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Washington,
D.C.: Review and Herald, 1938.

________. The Value of Organization: An Historical Study. [N.p.,

1914.]

Crosby, Tim. "The New Testament Church: Was It Hierarchical or

Congregational?" Adventist Review. 14 February 1985, 5-7.

Crow, Paul A. "Mission and Evangelism: The Crisis of Mandate."

Lexington Theological Quarterly 15 (1980): 114-28.

Crunden, Robert M. Ministers of Reform: The Progressive Achievement

of American Civilization 1889-1920. New York: Basic Books,
1982.
 388

Cushman, Robert E. "Institutional Integrity of the Church: An

Inquiry." The Duke Divinity School Review 46 (Fall 1981): 50-
63.

Daffern, Janice E. "Lay Representation in Union Constituency

Meetings." Spectrum 11 (June 1981): 47-49.

Damsteegt, P. Gerard. Foundations of the Seventh-dav Adventist

Message and Mission. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

Daniells, Arthur G. The Abiding Gift of Prophecy. Mountain View,

Calif.: Pacific Press, 1936.

________. "The Gospel Ministry." 6-part series in Review and Herald.

20 July 1911, 18-19; 27 July 1911, 20; 3 August 1911, 20-21;
10 August 1911, 16; 17 August 1911, 17-18; 24 August 1911, 12.

________. "An Important Question to Be Decided Now." Review and

Herald. 3 December 1903, 6-7.

________ . "Is Christ's Coming Being Delayed? If So, Why?" Ministry.

November 1930, 5.

________. "Missionary Work." Review and Herald. 27 February 1894,

133-34.

________. "Organization." Review and Herald. 7 February 1918, 6.

________ . "Organization: A Brief Account of Its History in the

Development of the Cause of the Third Angel's Message." 15-
part series in Review and Herald. 31 January 1907, 5-6; 7
February 1907, 5-6; 14 February 1907, 5; 21 February 1907, 5-
6; 28 February 1907, 6; 7 March 1907, 5-6; 14 March 1907, 5-6;
21 March 1907, 4-5; 28 March 1907, 5-6; 4 April 1907, 5-6; 11
April 1907, 5-6; 18 April 1907, 5-6; 25 April 1907, 4-6; 9 May
1907, 5; 16 May 1907, 4-5.

________. "Organization Developed by Our Pioneers." Review and

Herald. 21 February 1918, 5-6.

________ . "The President's Address: A Review and an Outlook--

Suggestions for Conference Action." Review and Herald. 11 May
1905, 8.

________. "Reformation and Reorganization." Review and Herald. 11

June 1925, 3-5.

________. "Some Beneficial Features of Organization." Review and

Herald. 14 March 1918, 6.
 389

________. "A Statement of Facts Concerning Our Present Situation."

9-part series in Review and Herald. 8 February 1906, 6-7; 15
February 1906, 6-7; 22 February 1906, 6-7; 1 March 1906, 6-7;
8 March 1906, 5-6; 15 March 1906, 6; 22 March 1906, 6-7; 29
March 1906, 6-7; 5 April 1906, 6-7.

________. "Thorough Organization Still Needed." Review and Herald.

14 February 1918, 5.

________. "The Value of Organization." Review and Herald. 7 March

1918, 5-6.

Danker, William. J, and Wi J. Kang, eds. The Future of the Christian

World Mission. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Dayton, Donald W. The American Holiness Movement: A Bibliographical

Introduction. Wilmore, Ky.: Asbury Theological Seminary,
1971.

________. Theological Roots of Pentecostalism. Grand Rapids: Francis

Asbury Press, 1987.

Dederen, Raoul. "The Nature of the Church.” Ministry. July 1972, 3-

6, 32-35.

________. "Nature of the Church." Ministry. February 1978, 24B-24F.

________. "Peter in the New Testament." Ministry. July 1974, 10-12.

________. "Tomorrow's Church, Truly a 'Remnant.'" Adventist Review.

9 January 1986, 8-10.

Dennis, James S. Christian Missions and Social Progress. 3 vols. New

York: Fleming H. Revell, 1897-1906.

________. The Modern Call of Missions. Studies in Some of the Larger

Aspects of a Great Enterprise. New York: Fleming H. Revell,
1913.

_________ ed. Centennial Survey of Foreign Missions. New York:

Fleming H. Revell, 1902.

Dennis, James S., Harlan P. Beach, and Charles H. Fahs. World Atlas
of Christian Missions. New York: Student Volunteer Movement,
1911.

Dick, Everett. "The Cost of Discipleship: Seventh-day Adventists and

Tennessee Sunday Laws in the 1890's." Adventist Heritage 11
(Spring 1986) : 26-32.

________. "Organization of the Movement." Review and Herald. 3

December 1931, 7-8.
 390

Dickson, L. K. "Leadership and Followership." Ministry. October

1931, 10.

________ . "Responsibility of Administration." Ministry. May 1948, 5

________. "Unerring Counsel for Executives." Ministry. June 1939,

35.

Dieter, Melvin E. The Holiness Revival of the Nineteenth Century.

Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1980.

Dittberner, J. L. "What Is a Union Conference Session?" Atlantic

Union Gleaner. 27 January 1976, 24.

"Do Adventist Colleges Have a Future?--A Symposium." Spectrum 18

(April 1988): 35-44.

Dole, Robert D. "Leadership -Followership: The Church's Challenge."

South-Western Journal of Theology 29 (Spring 1987): 23-28.

Doohan, Leonard. "Contemporary Theologies of the Laity: An Overview

Since Vatican II." Communio 7 (1980): 225-42.

Douglas, Walter B. T. "Advent Mission: An Engagement with the World.

Insight. 20 April 1976, 17-20.

•
____ . "The Church: Its Nature and Function." In Servants for
Christ: The Adventist Church Facing the 80's, ed. Robert E.
Firth, 53-85. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University
Press, 1980.

________. "Reaching the Unreached." Adventist Review. 16 June 1988,

20 - 21 .

Douglass, Herbert E. "Organizational Concepts Overshadow Friendship.

Review and Herald. 19 June 1975, 11-12.

Drohan, Michael. "Christianity, Culture, and the Meaning of Mission.

International Review of Mission 75 (1986): 285-303.

Drucker, Peter F. The Changing World of the Executive. London:

Heinemann, 1982.

________. "The Coming of the New Organization." Harvard Business

Review 66 (January 1988): 45-53.

________. The Effective Executive. New York: Harper and Row, 1967.

________. Management: Tasks. Responsibilities, Practices. New York:

Harper and Row, 1974.
 39 1

________. The Practice of Management. New York: Harper Brothers,

1954.

Dudley, Carl S. "Local Churches and the Denominational Structure:

Seven Ways to Bridge the Gap." Christian Ministry 12
(November 1981): 13-16.

Dudley, Roger L., and Des Cummings, Jr. Adventures in Church Growth.
Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald, 1983.

Duey, Charles J. "Authenticating Authority: A Fourth-Level

Breakthrough." Covenant Quarterly 39 (May 1981): 13-22.

Duge, John. "On Church Monies." Student Movement. 11 May 1988, 12.

Dulles, Avery. Models of the Church. Garden City, N.Y.: Image Books,
1978.

________. The Resilient Church. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977.

Dumont, C. J. "Conferences Episcopales et Autocephalie des Egleses:

Obstacles a la Convergence de deux Formes de Structure."
Instina 30 (1985): 131-40.

Dwyer, Bonnie. "Commission Proposes Genuine Full-Fledged North

American Division." Spectrum 14 (August 1983): 60-61.

________. "Innovations of a Constitutional Kind." Spectrum 16

(February 1986): 58-60.

________. "Pacific Union Considers Greater Lay Representation."

Spectrum 15 (December 1984): 13-14.

________ . "President's Commission Reviews Structural Change."

Spectrum 15 (May 1984): 64.

________. "Right Turn on the Road to the General Conference."

Spectrum 15 (December 1984): 15-21.

________ . "Winds of Reform: Structural Transition in North America."

Spectrum 14 (March 1984): 61-63.

Dybdahl, Jon. "How Culture Conditions Our View of Scripture."

Ministry. January 1988, 7-9.

Dybdahl, Tom. "Court Verdict on Pacific Press Case." Spectrum 11

(July 1980): 14-17.

Edwards, J. E. "The Pastor's Relationship to Church Organization."

Ministry. January 1963, 22.
 392

Edwards, Rex. A New Frontier: Every Believer a Minister. Mountain

View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1979.

Efefe, Elonda. "Episcope and Oversight in the Church: An African

Perspective." Mid Stream 25 (1986): 42-48.

The 1889 Campmeeting Sermons: As Found in the Topeka. Kansas. Daily

Capital. May 7-28. 1889. St. Maries, Idaho: LMN Publications,
1987.

"Eighth Business Meeting (Report of the Commission on the Role and

Function of Denominational Organizations).1' Adventist Review.
3 July 1985, 10-14.

Eitel, Keith. "The Transcultural Gospel: Crossing Cultural Barriers."

Evangelical Missions Quarterly 23 (1987): 130-38.

Ellis, A. E. The Missionary Idea. College View, Nebr.: Union College

Press, 1906.

Emerich, Craig L. "Repertoire and Rhythm: Leadership Styles and the

Demands of Pastoral Ministry." Perkins School of Theology
Journal 40 (1987): 28-43.

Etzioni, A. Modern Organizations. Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-

Hall, 1964.

Eva, W. Duncan. "Conference and Union Elections." Light. February

1971, 4-5.

________. "Fellowship Is as Important as Theological Dissent."

Spectrum 17 (February 1987): 45-47.

Evans, I. H. "The Minister's Relation to Denominational Policies."

Ministry. June 1933, 1.

Executive Committee, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. A

Statement Refuting Charges Made bv A. T. Jones Against the
Spirit of Prophecy and the Plan of Organization of the
Seventh-dav Adventist Denomination. Washington, D.C.: General
Conference Committee, 1906.

________. Claims Disproved. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald,

1920

________. Further Statements about Claims Disproved. Washington,

D.C.: Review and Herald, 1922.

Fasol, Al, ed. "Christian Leadership." South-Western Journal of

Theology 29 (Spring 1987): 5-43.
 393

"Fifth Business Meeting (Report of the Commission on the Role and

Function of Denominational Organizations)." Adventist Review.
2 July 1985, 8-11.

Figuhr, R. R. "Loyalty to the Church." Review and Herald. 29

September 1966, 16-18.

Fiorelli, Lewis S. "Expectancy of an Imminent Parousia and Concern

with Church Order: An Inverse Relationship?" The Thomist 39
(1975): 1-23.

Firth, Robert E., ed. Servants for Christ: The Adventist Church
Facing the 80's . Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University
Press, 1980.

Flaiz, Theodore R. "Some Basic Principles of Organization."

Ministry. August 1952, 6-8.

Flynn, John M. "Authority in Anglicanism." Consensus 12 (Spring

1986): 1-2, 17-39.

Forman, Charles W. "The Growth of the Study of the Expansion of

Christianity." Religious Studies Review 13 (1987): 30-33.

________. "A History of Foreign Missionary Theory in America." In

American Missions in Bicentennial Perspective, ed. R. Pierce
Beaver, 69-140. Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library,
1977.

"Formative Period in Organization and Doctrines." Ministry. April

1958, 22.

Foster, E. H. "Why I Became a Church Administrator." Light■ October

1976, 4-5.

"Fourteenth Business Meeting." Adventist Review. 11 July 1985, 4-11.

"Fourth Business Meeting (Report of the Commission on the Role and

Function of Denominational Organizations)." Adventist Review,
1 July 1985, 22-26.

Foyle, Marjory. "Missionary Relationships: Powderkeg or Powerhouse?"

Evangelical Missions Quarterly 21 (1985): 342-49.

Frank, Douglas W. Less Than Conquerors. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1986.

Frisbie, J. B. Order in the Church of God. Battle Creek, Mich.:

Review and Herald, 1859.

Froom, LeRoy E. "Accountability in Handling Men." Ministry, July

1940, 19.
 394

'•C h u r c h P o lic ie s and P ro c e d u re s." M in is tr y . Novem ber 194 9,

40.

_ _ _ _ _ _ . Movement of Destiny. Washington, D.6.i Review afld Hefald,

1971.

________. "Patience and Permanence." Ministry. March 1931, 4.

_ _ _ _ _ _ . Prophetic Faith of Out Fathers, h vols. Washington, D.C,:

Review and Herald, 1946-54.

Fuller, Geri A. "An Independent North American Division: Current

O p i nion at the General Conference." Spectrum 13 (September
1982): 15-21.

________. "Insuring the Church: The Unknown Giant at the General

Conference." Spectrum 16 (April 1985): 30-34.

Gaffney, James. "From Models of the Church to Models of the Model."

America 155 (1986): 377-80.

Gallagher, Jiggs. "Merging Unions and Conferences: The Example of

Mid-America." Spectrum 13 (September 1982): 21-25.

Gaustad, Edwin S., ed. A Documentary History of Religion in America

Since 1865. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

., ed. The Rise of Adventism: A Commentary on the Social and

Religious Ferment of Mid-Nineteenth Century America. New
York: Harper and Row, 1974.

General Conference Bulletin. Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald,

1887-1903; Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1903-1918.

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. 125th Statistical

Report. 1987. Washington, D.C.: Office of Archives and
Statistics, 1988.

"General Conference Proceedings." Review and Herald. 20 November

1883, 733.

"General Conference Proceedings." Review and Herald. 11 November

1884, 728.

"General Conference Proceedings." Review and Herald. 25 November

1884, 744-45.

"General Conference Proceedings." Review and Herald. 7 December 1886,

763.

General Conference Report." Review and Herald. 26 August 1875, 59.

 395

"General Conference Report." Review and Herald. 4 October 1877, 106.

Geraty, Lawrence T. "Dissent Is the Lifeblood of the Church's
Renewal," Stie.ctf.uiii 17 (Febfuary 1987); 48=50,
________. "A New Statement of Fundamental Beliefs." Spectrum 11
( J u l y 1980): 2-13.

Getz, Gene, Sharpening the Focus of the „Church, Chicago: Moody

Press, 1974.

Gittings, James A. "The Presbyterians: Structure and Mission."

Christianity and Crisis 46 (1986): 181-86.

Glasser, Arthur F. "The Evolution of Evangelical Mission Theology

Since World War II.” International Bulletin of Missionary
Research 9 (1985): 9-13.

Glasser, Arthur F., and Donald A. McGavran. Contemporary Theologies

of Mission. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.

Goen, Clarence C. "Ecclesiocracy without Ecclesiology: Denominational

Life in America." Religion in Life 48 (Spring 1979): 17-31.

Grant, Lorenzo H. "Bureaucratic Theology." Spectrum 11 (November

1980): 62-63.

Graybill, Ronald. "Agenda for the General Conference Session."

Spectrum 16 (June 1985): 24-27.

________. "A New Laity?" Visitor. 15 June 1986, 2.

________. "Role of Church Organizations Spelled Out." Visitor. 1

April 1985, 4.

________ . "Union Constitutions: What Do They Say?" Visitor. 1

November 1985, 4-5.

Greenleaf, Robert K. The Servant as Religious Leader. Peterborough,

N.H.: Windy Row Press, 1982.

Greenwalt, Glen. "A Priesthood of Believers--Neither Republic nor

Hierarchy." Spectrum 18 (October 1987): 43-50.

Greiner, Larry E. "Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow."

Harvard Business Review. 50 (July-August 1972): 37-46.

Guy, Fritz. "The Future and the Present: The Meaning of the Advent
Hope." In The Advent Hope in Scripture and History, ed. V.
Norskov Olsen, 211-29. Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald,
1987.
 396

Habada, Beverly, and Roy Branson. "The Struggle over Moving the
General Conference." Spectrum. 18 (December 1987): 35-43.

Hackett, W. J. "Decision or Rationalization?" Ministry. August 1981,

18-19.

Hadden, Jeffrey K. The Gathering Storm in the Churches. Garden City,

N.Y.: Doubleday, 1969.

Hale, F. W. "Commitment vs. Capitulation." Spectrum 2 (Spring 1970):

31-40.

Halverson, Richard. How I Changed Mv Thinking about the Church.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972.

Hammill, Richard. "Change and the SDA CHurch." 2-part series in

Adventist Review. 6 January 1983, 6; 13 January 1983, 6.

Hammill, Richard, and Ronald Graybill. "Who Will Be Elected General

.
Conference President in 1990?" Spectrum 18 (June 1988): 4-
12

Handy, Robert T. A. A Christian America: Protestant Hopes and

Historical Realities. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1971.

Hansen, Kent. "California Case Threatens Adventist Institutions."

Spectrum 17 (October 1986): 24-28.

Happer, Andrew P. The Missionary Enterprise: Its Success in Other

Lands and the Assurance of Its Success in China. Shanghai:
American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1880.

Harder, Ben. "The Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions and
Its Contribution to 20th Century Missions." Missiology 8
(1980): 141-54.

Harmon, Nolan B. The Organization of the Methodist Church.

Nashville, Tenn.: Methodist Publishing House, 1962.

________. "Structural and Administrative Changes." In The History of

American Methodism, ed. E. S. Bucke, 3:1-58. New York:
Abingdon Press, 1964.

Harms, Len. "Governance Commission Proposes Administrative and

Electoral Plans." North Pacific Union Gleaner. 20 August
1984, 19-20.

________. "A North Pacific Layperson--Yes." Spectrum 15 (August

1984): 62-63.
 397

Harrison, Paul D. "The Identity and Purpose of the Church." Theology

Today 42 (1985): 342-52.

Haskell, Stephen N. "Australia." Review and Herald. 6 January 1885,

12.

________. "Could the Heathen Nations Have Had the Gospel, and the
Lord Have Come Years Ago?" Review and Herald. 23 February
1892, 121.
________. "The Leading Nations of the Earth." Review and Herald. 16
April 1889, 246.

________- "India." 2-part series in Review and Herald. 13 May 1890,

297-98; 20 May 1890, 312-13.

________. "Is Organization of God?" 2-part series in Review and

Herald. 11 October 1892, 634; 18 October 1892, 649-50.

________. "Mistaken Views of Heathenism." Review and Herald. 8 April

1890, 216-17.

________. "Order." Review and Herald. 30 May 1907, 9-10.

________. "Religious Rites and Other Customs of the Matabeles."

Review and Herald. 27 November 1894, 746.

________. "To Nations, Tongues and People.” Review and Herald. 10

November 1874, 157.

________• "The Work before Us." Review and Herald. 25 February 1890,
121.

Haughey, S. G. "Our Church Organization." Review and Herald. 12

March 1931, 11-12.

Haynes, Carlyle B. "Self-supporting and Self-propagating Churches."

Ministry. August 1928, 27.

Henderson, G. D. Presbyterianism. Aberdeen: University Press, 1954.

Hendricks, Barbara. "Mission in the 1980s." Occasional Bulletin of

Missionary Research 4 (1980): 10-12.

Henry, S. M. I. "A Plea for Principle." Review and Herald. 25 April

1899, 261.

Hevener, Fillmer. "Managing the Church's Most Valuable Asset."

Ministry. April 1983, 14-15.

Higham, John. Strangers in the Land. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers

University Press, 1955.
 398

Hillman, Eugene. The Church as Mission. New York: Herder and Herder,
1965.

Hillock, Wilfred M. Involved. Nashville, Tenn.: Southern Publishing

Association, 1977.

________. "Need for Organizational Change in the Adventist Church."

Spectrum 4 (Summer 1972): 24-32.

Hirsch, Charles B. "Reorganization Within, Conflict Without--1900-

1925." Review and Herald. Anniversary Issue, November 1975,
12-13.

Historical Sketches of the Foreign Missions of Seventh-day Adventists.

Basel, Switz.: Imprimerie Polyglotte, 1886.

Hitchcock, James. Catholicism and Modernity: Confrontation or

Capitulation? New York: Seabury Press, 1979.

Hoekendijk, J. C. The Church Inside Out. Translated by Isaac C.

Rottenberg. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966.

Hoffstadter, Richard. The Paranoid Style in American Politics. New

York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966.

Holbrook, Frank B. "Gospel Finance: Pulling Together." Adventist

Review. 3 March 1988, 8-11.

Hollenweger, W. J. The Pentecostals. Minneapolis: Augsburg

Publishing House, 1972.

Honig, Anton G. "Mission Tomorrow: Interdependence at the Cutting

Edge." International Review of Mission 75 (1986): 304-313.

Hook, Milton R. "The Making of a President--E. G. White and A. G.

Daniells in Australia." Spectrum 18 (June 1988): 26-39.

Hoopes, L. A. "The Foreign Mission Board." Review and Herald. 1

November 1898, 701.

Hopkins, C. Howard. John R. Mott: 1865-1955. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1979.

Houser, Estella. "The Student Volunteer Convention in Toronto."

Review and Herald. 11 March 1902, 155.

Hudson, Winthrop S. Religion in America: An Historical Account of the

Development of American Religious Life. 3d ed. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1981.

________. "A Time of Religious Ferment." In The Rise of Adventism.

ed. Edwin S. Gaustad, 1-17. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.
 399

Hunter, George G. III. To Spread the Power. Nashville, Tenn.:

Abingdon Press, 1987.

Huntley, M. L. "The Spirit of God in Heathen Countries." Review and

Herald. 17 September 1889, 582.

________. "The Student Missionary Uprising." Review and Herald. 17

December 1889, 790-91.

Hutcheson, Richard G. Wheel within the Wheel: Confronting the

Management Crisis of the Pluralistic Church. Atlanta: John
Knox Press, 1979.

Hutchins, A. S. "God's Order." Review and Herald. 2 February 1886,

66-67.

Hutchison, William R. Errand to the World: American Protestant

Thought and Foreign Missions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1987.

________. The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism. New York:

Oxford University Press, 1976.

"Interview with Martin Marty." College People 2 (January 1982): 26-

32.

Irwin, Dale. "John R. Mott and World-centered Mission." Missiology

12 (1984): 155-65.

Irwin, G. A. "The Coming General Conference." Review and Herald. 7

February 1899, 90.

James, Otey. "One of 'This Generation.'" Review and Herald. 20 July

1905, 18.

Jay, Eric G. The Church: Its Changing Image through Twenty Centuries.
Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1980.

Johnson, David W. , and Frank P. Johnson. Joining Together. 3d ed.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1987.

Johnson, Douglas W. The Care and Feeding of Volunteers. Nashville,

Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1978.

Johnson, Eugene E. "Too Long a Tenure for Church Executives."

Adventist Review. 21 March 1985, 15.

Johnsson, William G. "New Orleans: A Watershed in Adventism."

Adventist Review. 18 July 1985, 8-10.

_________ "The Possibilities of World Adventism." Adventist Review,

18 September 1986, 4-5.
 400

________. "Process." Adventist Review. 28 May 1984, 4.

Jones, Alonzo T. An Appeal Presented before the General Conference of

Seventh-dav Adventists at Takoma Park. Washington. D.C.. May
27. 1909. N.p., 1909.

________. Church Organization. Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and

Herald, 1900.

________. Church Organization: Sermon by Elder A, T. Jones. Battle

Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald, 1901.

________. The Coming of Our Lord: We Would See Jesus. Oakland,

Calif.: Pacific Press, 1897.

________. The Consecrated Wav to Christian Perfection. Mountain

View, Calif.: Pacific Press, [1905],

________. "Denominational Finances." Review and Herald. 5 August

1902, 8-9.

________. Ecclesiastical Empire. Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and

Herald, 1901.

________. The Final Word and a Confession. N.p., [1906].

________. One Man Power. Oakland, Calif.: Pacific Press, [1903],

________. "Principles of Organization of the Pacific Union Medical

Missionary Association." 2-part series in Review and Herald.
24 February 1903, 9-10; 3 March 1903, 9-10.

[________]. "Reformation Called For." Review and Herald. 4 April

1899, 217.

________. "Reorganization." 6-part series in Review and Herald. 6

May 1902, 10-11; 13 May 1902, 9-10; 20 May 1902, 8-9; 27 May
1902, 9-10; 3 June 1902, 8-10; 10 June 1902, 9-10.

________. "Self-Government Means Self-Support." 3-part series in

Review and Herald. 27 May 1902, 9-10; 3 June 1902, 8-10; 10
June 1902, 9-10.

________. Some History. Some Experiences, and Some Facts. N.p.,

[1906] .

Jones, G. F. "Talking over Mission Methods." Ministry. August 1933,

16, 21.

Journal. General Conference. Methodist Episcopal Church. South. 1894.

n.p. [1894],
 401

Juberg, Morten. "Union President Outlines His Work and Importance of

Union in Church Organization." North Pacific Union Gleaner.
20 August 1984, 18-19.

Kellogg, John H. The Living Temple. Battle Creek, Mich.: Good Health
Publishing Co., 1903.

Kellogg, Moses E. "Order in God's Work." Review and Herald. 25 April

1893, 265-66.

Kelly, Dean M. Why Conservative Churches Are Growing: A Study in the

Sociology of Religion. New York: Harper and Row, 1972.

Keough, G. Arthur. "Church of the People?" Spectrum 15 (December

1984): 63.

Kern, Milton E. "The Application of Christian Integrity." Ministry.

December 1945, 3-5.

________ . "Institutionalism Must Not Supplant Individualism."

Ministry. February 1933, 3.

________. "Our Church Organization." Review and Herald. 20 March

1930, 13-14.

Kimball, I. E. "A Glorious Church." Review and Herald. 9 April 1889,

228.

Kime, D. S. "Training Nationals to Carry Responsibility." Ministry.

August 1942, 7.

Kirby, Gilbert W. "Congregationalism." New International Dictionary

of the Christian Church, ed. J. D. Douglas, 251-53. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1974.

Kleuser, Louise C. "Statistics Are Revealing." Ministry. February

1962, 19.

Kloppenburg, Bonaventure. The Ecclesiologv of Vatican II. Translated

by Matthew J. O'Connell. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press,
1974.

Knight, George R. From 1888 to Apostasy: The Case of A. T. Jones.

Hagerstown Md.: Review and Herald, 1987.

________. Myths in Adventism. Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald,

1985.

________. "Spiritual Revival and Educational Expansion." Adventist

Review. 29 March 1984, 8-11.
 402

Knight, George W . , III. "Two Offices (Elders or Bishops and Deacons)

and Two Orders of Elders (Preaching or Teaching Elders and
Ruling Elders): A New Testament Study." Presbvterion 11
(Spring 1985): 1-12.

Kotz, E. "Organization and Unity in Diversity." Review and Herald.

22 December 1927, 2.

Koyama, Kosuke. Waterbuffalo Theology. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books,

1974.

Kranz, Russel. "In God's Order." Adventist Review. 2 May 1985, 7-8.

Kuhn, Mary C. Leader of Men: The Life of Arthur G. Daniells.

Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1946.

Kung, Hans. The Church. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968.

________. Structures of the Church. Notre Dame: University of Notre

Dame Press, 1968.

Kwirnam, Alwin. L. "How the General Conference Election Works."

Spectrum 7 (Spring 1975): 17-18, 20-22.

Lall, Bernard M . , and Geeta R. Lall. Dynamic Leadership. Mountain

View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1979.

Land, Gary. "Coping with Change, 1961-1980." In Adventism in

America. ed. Gary Land, 208-230. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1986.

________. "Shaping the Modern Church, 1906-1930." In Adventism in

America. ed. Gary Land, 139-69. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1986.

________. "Where Did Adventist Organizational Structure Come From?"

Spectrum 7 (Spring 1975): 23-27.

________, ed. Adventism in America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

________, ed. The World of Ellen G. White. Hagerstown, Md.: Review

and Herald, 1987.

Larson, R. C., and Wilfred M. Hillock. "The Education of Adventist

Administrators." Spectrum 3 (Winter 1971): 66-73.

Lashley, Sylvan. "Divisions Adapt Church Policies to Local Cultures."

Spectrum 14 (December 1983): 64.

Lassey, William R. , and Marshall Sashkin, eds. Leadership and Social

Change. 3d ed. San Diego: University Associates Press,
1983.
 403

Latourette, Kenneth S. Christianity in a Revolutionary Age: A History

in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Vol. 3, The
Nineteenth Century Outside Europe: The Americas. The Pacific.
Asia, and Africa. New York: Harper, 1961.

________. A History of the Expansion of Christianity. Vol. 4, The

Great Century, A, D, 1800--A. D. 1914. London: Eyre and
Spottiswoode, 1941.

________. Missions Tomorrow. New York: Harper and Bros., 1936.

Lawrence, Edward A. Modern Missions in the East: Their Methods.

Successes, and Limitations. New York: Harper and Brothers,
1895.

Lawrence, William D. "Distinctives of Christian Leadership.”

Bibliotheca Sacra 144 (1987): 317-29.

Leach, B. E. "Unions: Why They're There." 6-part series in

Southwestern Union Record. 26 April 1984, 12p; 10 May 1984,
12p; 24 May 1984, 16p; 7 June 1984, 12p; 21 June 1984, 12h;
21 June 1984, 12i.

Lee, Frederick. "The Authority of the Church." Review and Herald. 10

April 1941, 9-10.

________. "The Authority of the Church." Review and Herald. 31

October 1957, 9-10.

Leith, John H. , ed. Creeds of the Churches. 3d ed. Atlanta: John

Knox Press, 1982.

Lenker, William. "Influence of the United States upon India." Review

and Herald. 26 June 1894, 405.

Leonard, Harry, ed. J. N. Andrews, the Man and the Mission. Berrien
Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1985.

Linden, Ingemar. The Last Trump: An Historico-genetical Study of Some

Important Chapters in the Making and Development of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1978.

Lindgren, Alvin J. Foundations for Purposeful Church Administration.

Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1976.

Lindgren, Alvin J., and Norman Shawchuck. Management for Your Church.
Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1977.

________ . Let My People Go . Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1980.

 404

Littlejohn, W. H. "Duties of Local Church Officers." 2-part series

in Review and Herald. 15 November 1887, 713-14; 22 November
1887, 730-31.

Londis, James. "Waiting for the Messiah: The Absence and Presence of
God in Adventism." Spectrum 18 (February 1988): 5-11.

Loughborough, John N. "The Church." 27-part series in Review and

Herald. 2 October 1900, 635-36; 9 October 1900, 651; 16
October 1900, 667-68; 23 October 1900, 682-83; 30 October
1900, 698-99; 6 November 1900, 715; 13 November 1900, 731; 20
November 1900, 747; 27 November 1900, 763; 4 December 1900,
779-80; 12 February 1901, 106; 19 February 1901, 122-23; 4
April 1901, 234-35; 7 May 1901, 300-301; 14 May 1901, 314-
15; 21 May 1901, 337-38; 28 May 1901, 346-47; 4 June 1901,
363-64; 11 June 1901, 380-81; 18 June 1901, 397; 25 June
1901, 404-5; 2 July 1901, 419-20; 9 July 1901, 436-37; 16
July 1901, 452; 23 July 1901, 469-70; 30 July 1901, 484-85; 6
August 1901, 500-501.

________. The Church: Its Organization. Order, and Discipline.

Washington, D.C.: Review and herald, 1907.

________. The Great Second Advent Movement: Its Rise and Progress.
Washington D. C.: Review and Herald, 1905.

________. "No Schism in the Body." 2-part series in Review and

Herald. 21 February 1899, 113-14; 28 February 1899, 130.

________. "Order and Organization." Review and Herald. 26 June 1913,

3-4.

________. Rise and Progress of Seventh-dav Adventists. Battle Creek,

Mich.: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1892.

Lowe, Harry W. "Machinery or Mission?" Ministry. April 1962, 52.

Ludgate, T. K. "The Church a Divine Institution." Ministry. December

1945, 5.

MacDonald, Gordon. "When Wineskins Start to Rip." Leadership 5

(Winter 1984): 70-75.

Magan, Percy T. "Convention of the Student Volunteer Movement."

Review and Herald. 10 March 1891, 150.

________. "Denominational Debts." Review and Herald. 11 April 1899,

235-36.

________. "Life Sketches of Arthur Grosvenor Daniells." Review and

Herald. 18 April 1935, 2, 6.
 405

Marc, Gabriel. "The Institutional Church in the Future: Facts and

Interpretations." Pro Mundi Vita 82 (1980): 1-26.

Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping

of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1980.

Martin, Chalmers. Apostolic and Modern Missions. New York: Fleming

H. Revell, 1898.

Marty, Martin E. Pilgrims in Their Own Land: 500 Years of Religion in

America. New York: Penguin Books, 1985.

Mathew, Parachel K. "Church Government in the New Testament."

Communio Viatorum: A Theological Quarterly 24 (1981): 165-78.

Mathews, Basil. John R. Mott: World Citizen. New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1934.

Maxwell, C. Mervyn. Tell It to the World. Rev. ed. Mountain View,

Calif.: Pacific Press, 1977.

May, Lynn E., ed. "Baptist Polity: A Look at Church Order." Baptist
History and Heritage 14 (July 1979): 1-70.

Mazrui., Ali A. "Religion and Political Culture in Africa." Journal

of the American Academy of Religion 53 (1985): 817-39.

McArthur, Benjamin. "A New Look at the Old Days: Adventist History
Comes of Age." Spectrum 18 (February 1988): 36-42.

McClung, L. Grant, Jr. "Theology and Strategy of Pentecostal

Missions." International Bulletin of Missionary Research 12
(1988): 2-5.

McClure, A. C. "Southern Union Studies Church Organization."

Southern Tidings. June 1984, 31.

McConaughey, J. L. "Loyalty to God and the Brethren." 2-part series

in Ministry. June 1947, 5; July 1947, 11-12.

McCormick, Richard. "L'Affaire Curran." Spectrum 17 (February 1987):

37-44.

McCullough, David. "Incarnation and Institution." Christian Century

98 (1981): 1337-39.

McDonough, Reginald M. Working with Volunteer Leaders in the Church.

Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1976.
 406

McEIhany, J. L. "Principles of Conference Administration." 7-part

series in Ministry. March 1938, 5-7; April 1938, 7-8, 43; May
1938, 9-11; June 1938, 33-34, 43; July 1938, 7-8, 40; August
1938, 6-7, 44-45; September 1938, 19-20.

________. "Principles, Problems, and Policies." 2-part series in

Ministry, March 1937, 1, 22-23; April 1937, 1, 23.

McGavran, Donald A. The Bridges of God. London: World Dominion

Press, 1955.

________. Understanding Church Growth. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1980.

McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprize. New York: McGraw-

Hill, 1960.

________. Leadership and Motivation. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts

Institute of Technology Press, 1966.

McKelvey, R. Jack. "Authority in the Church." Journal of Theology

for Southern Africa 23 (June 1978): 4-17.

Medley, Carlos. "Wilson Calls Church to Adopt Global Strategy."

Adventist Review. 30 October 1986, 8-10.

Meleen, E. M. "Self-Reliance in the Indigenous Church." Ministry.

August 1945, 39.

Menking, Stanley J. "Church Administration: Ministry with and for the

People." The Drew Gateway 48 (Winter 1977): 41-51.

Mesar, Joe. "Income Sharing: A Plan for Economic Justice in the Local
Church." Spectrum 13 (June 1983): 22-29.

Meyer, A. "The Worker's Personal Relationship with the Organization."

Ministry. March 1955, 7.

Michael, T. J. "Shall We Go out of Business as a Foreign Mission

Enterprise?" Ministry. September 1942, 3-6.

Mikolaski, Samuel J. "Leadership Secular and Sacred: An

Interpretative Review of William J. Ouchl's Theory Z." Crux:
A Quarterly Journal of Christian Thought and Opinion 21
(March 1985) : 19-21.

Miles, Norman. "The Struggle in the Lake Region Conference."

Spectrum 17 (May 1987): 19-25.

Miller, H. W. "Lessening Administrative Expense." Ministry. November

1932, 3.
 407

________. "Periodic Changes Are Advantageous." Ministry. February

1933, 12.

Minear, Paul. Images of the Church in the New Testament.

Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

"Model Constitutions Voted for Conferences and Unions." Adventist

Review. 7 November 1985, 7.

Moffitt, L. L. "The General Conference." Review and Herald. 1 March

1962, 8-9.

________. "A God of Order Guides His Church." 9-part series in

Review and Herald. 4 January 1962, 2-4; 11 January 1962, 2-3;
18 January 1962, 4-6; 25 January 1962, 2-3; 1 February 1962,
5- 7; 8 February 1962, 6-8; 15 February 1962, 6-7; 22 February
1962, 7-8; 1 March 1962, 8-9.

Monnier, H. "Mission Land Mass Movements." Ministry. February 1940,

6- 7.

Montgomery, Oliver. "Independence and Domination." 2-part series in

Ministry. September 1928, 8; October 1928, 10.

________. Principles of Church Organization and Administration.

Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1942.

Moody, Dale. "The Shaping of Southern Baptist Polity." Baptist

History and Heritage 14 (July 1979): 2-11.

Moore, J. "Comparison of Lay Participation in Church Polity."

Spectrum 7 (Spring 1975): 19.

Moore, R. Laurence. Religious Outsiders and the Making of Americans.

New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Moorhead, James H. "The Erosion of Postmillennialism in American

Religious Thought, 1865-1925." Church History 53 (1984): Si­
ll.

Mostert, Thomas J. "Responses to AAF Report on Church Structure."

Spectrum 15 (August 1984): 60-61.

Mott, John R. Addresses and Papers of John R. Mott. 6 vols. New

York: Association Press, 1946-1947, 1:82. Quoted in C.
Howard Hopkins, John R. Mott. 1865-1955: A Biography. 232.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Mott, John R. The Evangelization of the World in This Generation.

New York: Student Volunteer Movement, 1905.
 408
Muck, Terry C., ed. "Church Politics." Leadership 4 (Summer 1983):
20-103.

Muller, Karl. "Christliche Mission und Kolonialismus im 19ten und

20ten Jahrhundert." Zeltschrift fur Mlssionswissenschaft und
Religionswissenschaft 64 (1980): 192-207.

Murray, Milton. "Loyalty--The Needed Virtue." Adventist Review. 20

August 1981, 4-5.

Murrill, W. L. "North America's Role in Financing the World Church."

Adventist Review. 9 August 1984, 10-11.

"Neal Wilson Talks about Law Suits." Spectrum 9 (March 1978): 30-37.

Neill. Stephen. A History of Christian Missions. New York: Penguin

Books, 1964.

________. "Mission in the 1980s." Occasional Bulletin of Missionary

Research 3 (1979): 27-28.

________ . "Third World and Mission." Review and Expositor 74 (1977):

135-48.

Netteburg, Kermit. "Columbia Union Develops Plan for Greater Growth."

Adventist Review. 23 June 1988, 9-11.

Neufeld, Donald F. "The Church Manual Is Born." Review and Herald. 8

August 1974, 10-11.

________. "The Church's Teaching Authority.” Review and Herald. 11

July 1974, 9-10.

________. "Is There a Teaching Authority in the Adventist Church?"

Review and Herald. 31 January 1974, 11-12.

________. "Pressure to Disorganize." Review and Herald. 25 July

1974, 11.

________. "When Was the Seventh-day Adventist Church Organized?

Review and Herald. 6 May 1971, 14-15.

________, ed. Seventh-dav Adventist Encyclopedia. Rev. ed.

Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1976.

Neuhaus, Richard. "America--A Religious Republic?" Spectrum 17

(October 1986): 2-5.

Newbigen, Lesslie. "Christ and the Cultures." Scottish Journal of

Theology 31 (1978): 1-22.
 409

________. Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture.

Grand Rapids: Eerdotans, 1986.

________. The Household of God. New York: Friendship Press, 1953.

________. Trinitarian Faith and Today's Mission. Richmond, Va.: John

Knox Press, 1963.

Nichol, Francis D. "Church Organization Takes Shape." Review and

Herald. 4 April 1963, 15-16.

________. "The Story of Church Organization." 5-part series in

Review and Herald. 3 January 1963, 14-15; 10 January 1963,
12-13; 17 January 1963, 12-13; 24 January 1963, 12-13; 31
January 1963, 12-13.

Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper and Row,
1951.

________. The Social Sources of Denominatlonallsm. New York: H.

Holt, 1929.

Ninaj, Bess. "Organization in the New Testament Church." Ministry.

December 1959, 34.

Noll, Mark A., Nathan 0. Hatch, and George M. Marsden. The Search for
Christian America. Westchester, 111.: Crossway Books, 1983.

Noren, Carol J. "Principles from Change Theory for the Church."

Covenant Quarterly 41 (May 1983): 24-25.

Norwood, Frederick A. The Story of American Methodism: A History of

the United Methodists and Their Relations. Nashville, Tenn.:
Abingdon Press, 1974.

Nostbakken, Roger W. "The Concept of Authority in the Church."

Consensus 12 (Spring 1986): 1-2, 41-52.

"Notes from the General Conference." Review and Herald. 7 May 1901,
296-97.

Nott, Peter. "Towards a Theology of Leadership." Expository Times 97

(1986): 138-42.

Olsen, M. Ellsworth. A History of the Origins and Progress of

Seventh-day Adventists. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald,
1925.

Olsen, Ole A. "An Appeal on Behalf of Foreign Missions." Review and

Herald. 29 September 1891, 601-602.
 410

________. "District Conferences." Review and Herald. 17 September

1895, 608.

________. "The General Conference Council." Review and Herald. 5

August 1890, 489.

________. "The Movement of Laborers." Review and Herald. 12 June

1894, 378-79.

________. "Recommendations of the General Conference Committee."

Review and Herald. 19 June 1894, 395.

________. "Report of the General Conference Committee Meetings from

March 11-21, 1892.” Review and Herald. 26 April 1892, 266.

________. "The Year's Work and the Outlook." Home Missionary.

November 1893 (Extra No. 2), 2-3.

Olsen, V. Norskov, ed. The Advent Hope in Scripture and History.

Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald, 1987.

Olson, A. V. Thirteen Crisis Years. 1888-1901. 2d ed. Washington,

D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981.

Oosterwal, Gottfried. "Adventist Mission: After a Hundred Years."

Ministry. September 1974, 24-27.

________. "The Challenge of Missions." Insight. 10 November 1970,

12-17.

________ . "Continuity and Change in Adventist Mission." In Stature

of Christ, ed. Vern Carner and Gary Stanhiser, 45-57. Loma
Linda, Calif.: Privately printed, 1970.

________ . "How Many Tragedies: A Commentary." Spectrum 7 (Summer

1975): 45-47.

________. "A Lay Movement." Review and Herald. 7 February 1974, 9-

11.

"M. B. Czechowski"s Significance for the Growth and

Development of Seventh-day Adventist Mission." In Michael
Belina Czechowski 1818-1876. eds. Rajmund L. Dabrowski amd
Bert B. Beach, 160-205. Warsaw, Poland: Znaki Czarsu
Publishing House, 1979.

"Mission in a New Key." Spectrum 3 (Summer 1971) 13-23.

. "The Mission of the Church." Ministry. July 1972, 7-10, 36-

39.
 411

________. "The Mission of the Church." Ministry. February 1978, 24G-

24K.

________. Mission: Possible. Nashville, Tenn.: Southern Publishing

Association, 1972.

________. "Mission Still Possible." Ministry. December 1986, 4-8.

________. "The New Shape of Adventist Mission." Spectrum 7 (Spring

1975): 44-54.

________. Patterns of Seventh-day Adventist Church Growth in North

America. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press,
1974.

________. "The Seventh-day Adventist Church in the World Today." In

Servants for Christ: The Adventist Church Facing the 80's .
ed. Robert E. Firth, 1-52. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews
University Press, 1980.

________. "Seventh-day Adventist Mission in the Seventies." Spectrum

2 (Spring 1970): 5-20.

________. "What Kind of Missionary." Insight. 20 April 1976, 20-24.

Outline of Mission Fields Entered by Seventh-dav Adventists. 2d ed.

Washington, D.C.: Mission Board of Seventh-day Adventists,
1908.

Outline of Mission Fields Entered by Seventh-dav Adventists. 4th ed.

Washington, D.C.: Mission Board of Seventh-day Adventists,
1920.

An Outline of Mission Fields: A Help to the Study of the Work of

Seventh-dav Adventists in Lands Outside North America. 5th
ed. Washington, D.C.: Mission Board of Seventh-day
Adventists, 1927.

Padilla, C. Rene. "The Mission of the Church in the Light of the

Kingdom of God." Transformation 1 (April-June 1984): 16-20.

"Panel Recommends Present Conference and Association Legal Structure

Be Retained." Pacific Union Recorder. 24 December 1984, 2.

Patterson, Gary B. "What Is the Church?" Adventist Review. 18 August

1988, 8-10.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. Spirit Versus Structure. New York: Harper and

Row, 1968.

Percy, M. V. H. "Deceptive Theology." Ministry. May 1988, 2.

 412

Pierce, Alfred M. Giant against the Skv. New York: Abingdon Press,
1958.

Pierson, Arthur T. The Crisis of Missions. New York: Robert Carter

and Bros., 1886.

________. The Keswick Movement. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1903.

Pierson, Robert H. "The Highest Authority That God Has Upon Earth."
Ministry, June 1976, 7-9.

________. "How Can We Settle Our Grievances?" Review and Herald. 21

October 1976, 6-7.

________. "'The Letter of the Law.'" Ministry. November 1964, 13.

________. "Which Course Shall We Follow?" Review and Herald. 8 June

1972, 2.

Pietz, D. Lothar. "New Forms from Places Old and New." Dialog 18
(1979): 277-85.

Pilling, John T . , ed. "Many Are One: Papers on Episcopal/Synodical

Government." Journal of the Canadian Church Historical
Society 21 [Occasional Paper #6] (1979): 1-20.

Plantner, C. Elwyn. "Some Thoughts on Rebuilding Church Structure."

Pacific Union Recorder. 3 February 1986, 4-5.

Plueddeman, James E. "Beyond Independence to Responsible Maturity."

Evangelical Missions Quarterly 19 (1983): 48-55.

Pocock, Michael. "The Destiny of the World and the Work of Missions."
International Journal of Frontier Missions 1 (1984): 215-34.

Porter, Roscoe C. "The Church of Christ a Religious Liberty Society."

Review and Herald. 16 June 1903, 8-9.

Prescott, Warren W . . "The Development of the Advent Movement."

Review and Herald. 26 November 1908, 3.

[________]. "The Mission of the Church." Review and Herald. 16

August 1906, 3-4.

[________]. "No More Delay." Review and Herald. 21 December 1905, 3.

________. "Organization and Disorganization." Review and Herald. 12

December 1907, 4.

[________]. "The Principle and 'the Principles.'" Review and Herald.

15 September 1904, 3-4.
 413
[________]. "The Purpose of Organization." Review and Herald. 14
November 1907, 3.

[________]. "Significant Changes." Review and Herald. 22 December

1904, 3-4.

________. "Studies in the Prophecies: This Generation." Review and

Herald. 23 June 1904, 4-5.

[________]. "The Warning to This Generation." Review and Herald. 16

February 1905, 3.

Provonsha, Jack W. "Can There Be an Innovative Adventism?" Ministry.

April 1976, 34-35.

________. "The Church as a Prophetic Minority." Spectrum 12

(September 1981): 18-23.

Ramseyer, Robert L. "Partnership and Interdependence." International

Review of Mission 69 (1980): 32-39.

Rasmussen, Steen. "The Ministry and the Laity.” Ministry. July 1939,
13-14.

Ratzinger, Joseph. "Theologie und Kirchenpolitik." Internationale

Katholische Zeltschrift 9 (1980): 425-34.

Raymond, Earnest A. "Organization: The Science of Life's

Development." 4-part series in Review and Herald. 11
December 1900, 786-87; 25 December 1900, 818-19; 1 January
1901, 5; 29 January 1901, 69.

________. "Organization: The Early Church." 3-part series in Review

and Herald. 12 February 1901, 98-99; 26 February 1901, 133; 5
March 1901, 146-47.

________. "Organization: The Remnant Church." Review and Herald. 19

March 1901, 178-79.

________. "The General Conference." Review and Herald. 26 March

1901, 194-95.

Rea, Walter T. "Try It. You'll Like It." Ministry. August 1974, 23.

Read, W. S. "Presbyterianism." The New International Dictionary of

the Christian Church, ed. J. D. Douglas, 800-801. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1974.

"Reader's Symposium: Butler on Ellen White's Eschatology." Spectrum

11 (July 1980): 24-34.
 414

Reapsome, James. "Making the Most of Management Theories."

Evangelical Missions Quarterly 20 (1984): 62-63.

Rebok, Denton E. "They Must Increase--We Must Decrease." 2-part

series in Ministry. January 1948, 7; February 1948, 32.

Reid, George W. "Time to Reorder the Church." Adventist Review. 28

July 1983, 14-15.

"The Reorganization of the General Conference Association." Review

and Herald. 20 December 1887, 792-93.

Report of the General Conference. Battle Creek, Mich.: Steam Press of

the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1863.

"Resolution or Revolution?" Ministry. December 1976, 1-10.

Reynolds, Keld J. "The Church under Stress, 1931-1960." In Adventism

in America, ed. Gary Land, 170-207. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1986.

Rice, George. "The Church: Voice of God?" Ministry. December 1987,

4-6.

Rice, Richard. "Dominant Themes in Adventist Theology." Spectrum 10

(March 1980): 58-74.

Richards, Lawrence 0., and Clyde Hoeldtke. A Theology of Church

Leadership. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980.

Rickey, Russel E. "Ecclesial Sensibilities in 19th-Century American

Methodists." Quarterly Review: A Scholarly Journal for
Reflection on Ministry 4 (Spring 1984): 31-42.

________. "Social Sources of Denominationalism: Methodism."

Methodist History 15 (1979): 167-85.

Ridley, Betty. "Government and Leadership in the Church." Theology

81 (1978): 190-95.

Ro, Bong Rin. "Theological Trends in Asia: Asian Theology." World

Evangelization 15 (March-April 1988): 16-17,25.

Ro, Bong Rin, and Ruth Eshenaur, eds. The Bible and Theology in Asian
Contexts. Taichung, Taiwan: Asia Theological Association,
1984,

Roberts, D. Bruce. "Power and Servanthood: Emerging Notions for

Church Leadership." Encounter 48 (1987): 83-92.

Robertson, John J. A. G, Daniels. The Making of a General Conference

President. Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1977.
 415

Robinson, Ella M. S. N. Haskell: Man of Action. Washington, D.C.:

Review and Herald, 1967.

Robinson, Virgil. James White. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald,

1976.

Robison, James I. "Studies on Church Government." 6-part series in

Review and Herald. 26 June 1952, 4; 10 July 1952, 6-7; 24
July 1952, 11-12; 14 August 1952, 7-8; 28 August 1952, 10-11;
11 September 1952, 4-6.

Rock, Calvin B. "A Better Way." Spectrum 2 (Spring 1970): 21-30.

Roehlkepartain, Eugene C., ed. "Ministry Focus: Management as

Ministry." Christian Ministry 18 (March 1987): 7-24.

Rosado, Caleb. "The Deceptive Theology of Institutionalism."

Ministry. November 1987, 9-12.

Rossiter, Fred M. "Principle." Review and Herald. 27 November 1894,

739.

Russell, Donald J. "Who Needs the Union Anyway?" Visitor. 1 June

1984, 2.

Sabbath School Department, Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Sabbath

School: It's History. Organization, and Objectives.
Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1938.

Sandeen, Ernest R. "Millennialism." In The Rise of Adventism, ed.

Edwin S. Gaustad, 104-118. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

________. The Origins of Fundamentalism: Toward a Historical

Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968.

________. The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American

Millenarianism. 1800-1930. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1970,

Saunders, Stanley P. "Christian Eschatology: The Ground and Impetus

for Mission." South East Asia Journal of Theology 21 (1980):
16-25.

Schaff, Phillip. America. New York: Scribner, 1855; reprint, ed.

Perry Miller, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1961.
 416

Schaller, Lyle E. Growing Plans. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press,

1983

Schaller, Lyle E., and Charles A. Tidwell. Creative Church

Administration. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1975.

Schein, Edgar H. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1985.

________. Organizational Psychology. 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice-Hall, 1980.

Scherer, James A. Gospel. Church, and Kingdom: Comparative Studies in

World Mission Theology. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg
Publishing House, 1987.

________. Missionary Go Home! A Re-appraisal of the Christian World

Mission. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980.

________. "When Church and State Go Abroad: Missions and America."

Worldview 25 (February 1982): 5-8.

Schilt, E. Nathan. "The AAF Task Force Replies." Spectrum 15 (August

1984): 61-62.

Schmitz, Kenneth L. "The Authority of Institutions: Meddling or

Middling?" Communio: International Catholic Review 12
(Spring 1985): 6-24.

Schoepflin, Rennie B. , ed. "Heirloom: Catholics, Lentils and Strange

Byways of Reform. An Outsider's View of the Battle Creek
Scene in the 1890's." Adventist Heritage 11 (Spring 1986):
50-55.

Schwarz, Richard W. John Harvey Kellogg. M.D. Nashville, Tenn.:

Southern Publishing Association, 1970.

________. "The Kellogg Schism: The Hidden Issues." Spectrum 4

(Autumn 1972): 23-39.

________. Light Bearers to the Remnant. Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press,

1979.

________ . "The Perils of Growth, 1886-1905." In Adventism in

America, ed. Gary Land, 95-138. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1986.

________. "Reorganization and Reform: The 1901 General Conference

Session, Battle Creek, Michigan." Adventist Heritage 10
(Spring 1985): 11-18.
 417

________ "When Adventists Organized." Adventist Review. 12 May

1988, 8-10.

Schweizer, Eduard. Church Order in the New Testament. London: SCM

Press, 1961.

Scofield, Michael. "The Adventist Health System: Can It Carry a

Billion Dollar Debt?" Spectrum 16 (April 1985): 27-29.

________ "Top Down or Bottom Up? Spectrum 15 (May 1984): 56-57.

Scragg, Walter R. L. "Missing--A Sense of Community." Ministry.

February 1978, 16-17.

Scriven, Charles. "The Case for Renewal in Adventist Theology."

Spectrum 8 (September 1976): 2-6.

_________ "The Real Truth about the Remnant." Spectrum 17 (October

1986): 6-13.

-------- "When the Jailhouse Rocks: In Defense of Evangelism for the

Church of Today." Spectrum 18 (February 1988): 22-28.

________ "A Word about Change in the Church." Insight. 17 November

1970, 22-23.

Sentee, Clarence. "The Value of Organization." Review and Herald. 16

July 1925, 9.

"Sermon by A. G. Daniells at the Opening of the Conference." Bulletin

of the European Union Conference Held in London. May 15-25,
1902. 3.

"Session Actions." Adventist Review. 5 July 1985, 9-21.

Seto, Wing Luk. "An Asian Looks at Contextualization and Developing

Ethnologies." Evangelical Missions Quarterly 23 (1987): 138-
141.

"Seventh Business Meeting (Report of the Commission on the Role and

Function of Denominational Organizations)." Adventist
Review. 3 July 1985, 8-10.

Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual. Rev. ed. Washington, D.C.:

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1986.

Seventh-dav Adventist Yearbook: 1888. Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and

Herald, 1889.

Seventh-dav Adventist Year Book for 1894. Battle Creek, Mich.:

General Conference Association of Seventh-day Adventists,
1894.
 418

Seventh-dav Adventist Yearbook of Statistics. 1889. Battle Creek,

Mich.: Review and Herald Publishing Co., 1889.

Seventh-dav Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine. Washington,

D.C.: Review and Herald, 1957.

Seventh-dav Adventists Believe. . . A Biblical Exposition of 27

Fundamental Doctrines. Washington, D.C.: Ministerial
Association General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,
1988.

Shadel, Hazel I. "Manning and Maintaining a World Movement."

Ministry. June 1943, 3.

Shedd, Charlie W. The Pastoral Ministry of Church Officers.

Richmond, Va.: John Knox Press, 1965.

Shenk, Wilbert R. "The 'Great Century' Reconsidered." Missioloev 12

(1984): 133-46.

Siemens, Ruth. "Secular Opinions for Missionary Work." In

Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader. ed.
Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne, 770-74. Pasadena,
Calif.: William Carey Library, 1981.

Sine, Tom. "Shifting Christian Mission into the Future Tense."

Missiologv 15 (1987): 15-23.

"Sixth Business Meeting (Report of the Commission on the Role and

Function of Denominational Organizations)." Adventist
Review. 2 July 1985, 11-13.

Skinner, L. A. "Student Volunteer Movement." Ministry. May 1948, 11.

Smith, Leon A. "The Church and the World." Review and Herald. 13 May
1890, 296-97.

________. "The End of ’This Generation.'" Review and Herald. 2

November 1905, 5.

________. "The World's Convention of Student Volunteers for Foreign

Missions." Review and Herald. 17 March 1891, 168-69.

Smith, Timothy L. Revivalism and Social Reform: American

Protestantism on the Eve of the Civil War. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.

________. "Social Reform." In The Rise of Adventism, ed. Edwin S.

Gaustad, 18-29. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

Smith, Uriah. "A Bird's-eye View of the Progress of Our Work."

Review and Herald. 18 August 1896, 523.
 419

-------- "Lighten Every Man." Review and Herald. 18 May 1897, 312.

I--------]• "Living on Borrowed Time.” Review and Herald. 1 October

1901, 636.

[--------]• "In This Generation." Review and Herald. 23 September

1902, 3.

[•------- ]• "Note." Review and Herald. 3 February 1859, 87

--------- "Order in the Church." Review and Herald. 6 October 1896,

634-35.

t--------]• "Origin and History of the Third Angel's Message, Number

8 -" Review and Herald. 27 January 1891, 56-57.

I-------- ]• "0ur Work." Review and Herald. 12 January 1892, 24.

-------- "The Seventh-day Adventists: A Brief Sketch of Their

Origin, Progress, and Principles." 4-part series in Review
and Herald. 3 November 1874, 148-49; 10 November 1874, 156;
17 November 1874, 164; 24 November 1874, 171.

f--------]• "This Generation." Review and Herald. 22 March 1887,

182.

--------]• "This Generation." Review and Herald. 17 November 1891,

712.

Snyder, Howard. The Radical Wesley and Patterns for Church Renewal.
Downers Grove, 111.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980.

Spalding, Arthur W. Footprints of the Pioneers. Washington, D.C.:

Review and Herald, 1947.

--------- "The Great Conference of 1901." Review and Herald. 13

November 1952, 12.

-------- Origin and History of Seventh-dav Adventists. 4 vols.

Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1961-1962.

Spalding and Magan's Unpublished Manuscript Testimonies of Ellen G,

White Taken from the Private Collection of E. A. Sutherland.
Percy T, Magan. M.D.. David Paulson M.D.. 0. A. Johnson. A.
5L_Spalding. N.p.: A. W. Spalding and Percy T. Magan, 1915-
1916; reprint, Payson, Ariz.: Leaves of Autumn Press, 1975.

Spangler, J. R. "Concerns of 24 Pastors." Ministry. August 1981, 20-

21 .

Speer, Robert E. Christianity and the Nations. New York: Fleming H.

Revell, 1910.
 420

________. "A Few Comparisons of Then and Now." Missionary Review of

the World 53 (January 1928): 5-10.

________. The Gosoel and the New World. New York: Fleming H. Revell,
1919.

________. Missionary Principles and Practice: A Discussion of

Christian Missions and Some Criticisms upon Them. New York:
Fleming H. Revell, 1902.

________. "The Watchword of the Movement: The Evangelization of the

World in This Generation." In The Student Missionary Appeal,
Addresses at the Third International Convention of the
Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions. Held at
Cleveland. Ohio. February 23-27. 1898. 201-216. New York:
Student Volunteer Movement, 1898.

Spicer, William A. After 100 Years: 1844-1944. Washington, D.C.:

Review and Herald, 1944.

________. "A Democratic Organization." Review and Herald. 21

February 1929, 3.

________. "The Divine Principle of Organization." Review and Herald.

27 July 1916, 3-4.

________ . "Divine Warnings against Disorganization." Review and

Herald. 14 September 1916, 4.

________. The Gosoel in All the World. Washington, D.C.: Review and
Herald, 1926.

________. "Gospel Order." 8-part series in Review and Herald. 25

March 1909, 4-5; 1 April 1909, 5-6; 8 April 1909, 5-6; 15
April 1909, 6; 22 April 1909, 5; 29 April 1909, 5-6; 6 May
1909, 5-6; 13 May 1909, 7-8.

________. Gospel Order: A Brief Outline of the Bible Principles of

Organization. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, [1907],

________. "How We Early Developed Efficient Organization." Review

and Herald. 1 May 1947, 4.

________. Miracles of Modern Missions. Washington, D.C.: Review and

Herald, 1926.

________. "New Testament Conferences." Review and Herald. 18

September 1913, 9-10.

________ . "Off to the Mission Fields in 1903." Review and Herald. 4

February 1904, 5.
 421

________. "Old Testament Illustrations of Gospel Order." Review and

Herald. 10 August 1916, 4-5.

________. "Order and System in New Testament Times." Review and

Herald. 27 August 1936, 8.

________. "Organizing the New Testament Church." Review and Herald,

17 August 1916, 3.

________ Our Story of Missions. Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific

Press, 1921.

________ "The Spirit of Order and Organization in the New Testament

Church." Review and Herald. 24 October 1940, 10-11.

_________ "This Second Advent Movement: An Organized Movement."

Review and Herald. 24 April 1930, 5-6.

Staples, Russell L. "The Church in the Third World.” Review and

Herald. 14 February 1974, 6-8.

-------- "The Face of the Church to Come." Adventist Review. 2

January 1986, 8-10.

________. "The Gospel to the World.” Insight. 20 April 1976, 14-17.

________ "Internationalization of the Church." Spectrum 11 (July

1980): 4.

_________ "Seventh-day Adventist Mission in the 80's." In Servants

for Christ: The Adventist Church Facing the 80's, ed. Robert
E. Firth, 87-138. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University
Press, 1980.

"Statistical Report." Review and Herald. 18 August 1904, 8-16.

"Statistical Report of the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination, for

1903." Review and Herald. 18 August 1904, 9-16.

Starr, George B. "Organization--Its Object." Review and Herald. 29

May 1924, 3-4.

Steed, E. H. J. "Meeting the Institutional Crisis.” Review and

Herald. 1 April 1976, 14.

Steed, Mary Lou. "Church Schism and Secession: A Necessary Sequence."

Review of Religious Research 27 (1986): 344-55.

Stevens, J. A. "The Church Organized." Review and Herald. 22

November 1934, 7-8.
 422

Stevens, John, Sr. "Rebuilding Church Structure: An Opinion on Church

Structure." Pacific Union Recorder. 3 March 1986, 4-7.

Stevenson, G. S. "Developing Indigenous Leadership." Ministry. July

1962, 26.

________. "The Philosophy of Administration." Ministry. January

I960, 16-17.

Steward, M. E. "This Generation." Review and Herald. 30 August 1887,

548-49.

Stockwell, Eugene L., ed. "The Future of Mission." International

Review of Mission 76 (1987): 1-116.

Stransky, Thomas F. "Mission in the 1980s." Occasional Bulletin of

Missionary Research 3 (1979): 46-47.

Strayer, Brian E. "Adventist Tithepaying--The Untold Story."

Spectrum 17 (October 1986): 39-52.

Strong, Josiah. Expansion under New World Conditions. New York:

Baker and Taylor, 1900.

"The Strongest Nation in the World." Review and Herald. 10 February

1885, 96.

"Structure Study History Is Received." Pacific Union Recorder. 28 May

1984, 1.

Student Mission Power: Report of the First International Convention of

the Student Volunteer Movement of Foreign Missions. New
York: Student Volunteer Movement of Foreign Missions, 1891;
reprint, Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1979.

Swatos, William H. "Beyond Denominationalism: Community and Culture

in American Religion." Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 20 (1981): 217-27.

Sweet, William W. Methodism in American History. New York: Abingdon

Press, 1933.

________. The Story of Religion in America. New York: Harper and

Brothers, 1950.

Synan, Vinson. The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Tarr, A. F. "History and Administration of Division Conferences.”

Ministry. October 1957, 15.
 423

Taber, Charles R. "Contextualizatlon." Religious Studies Review 13

(1987): 33-36.

Takenaka, Masao. God Is Rice: Asian Culture and Christian Faith.

Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1986.

Teel, Charles, Jr. "On Church Structures, Change, and Unity." Review
and Herald. 21 May 1970, 4-6.

Temme, Jon M. "Indigenous Christologies: Perspectives from the Early

Church for the Modern Church." Trinity Seminary Review 9
(Spring 1987): 28-39.

Tenney, George C. "Doings at the Conference." Review and Herald. 16

March 1897, 169.

________ "Proceedings at the Conference." Review and Herald. 9

March 1897, 152.

--------- "Unity in Diversity." Review and Herald. 27 October 1896,

686 .
"Third Business Meeting (Report of the Commission on the Role and
Function of Denominational Organizations)." Adventist
Review. 1 July 1985, 20-22.

Thomas, N. Gordon. "The Second Coming: A Major Impulse of American

Protestantism." Adventist Heritage 3 (Winter 1976): 3-9.

Thompson, Alden. "Wanted: Innovators." Adventist Review. 13 June

1985, 14-15.

Thompson, George B. "The Church." 4-part series in Review and

Herald. 28 November 1918, 3-4; 5 December 19.18, 3; 12
December 1918, 2-3; 19 December 1918, 2-3.

-------- "Organization." Review and Herald. 7 September 1916, 5-6.

-------- "This Generation." Review and Herald. 4 September 1888,

564.

Thomsen, C. T. "Institutions: Ends or Means to an End?" Review and

Herald. 20 May 1976, 1.

Thung, Mady A. "Alternative Models for a Missionary Church: An

Approach of the Sociology of Organizations." The Ecumenical
Review 30 (1978): 18-31.

--------- "Organizing Religion: An Exercise in Applied Sociology."

The Annual Review of the Social Sciences of Religion 1
(1977): 145-66.
 424

Tobler, Lorna. "A Reformer's Vision: The Church as a Fellowship of

Equals." Spectrum 16 (June 1985): 18-23.

________. "Where Has the Proctor Case Taken Us?" Spectrum 17 (May
1987): 26-32.

Tollefson, Kenneth. "The Nehemiah Model for Christian Missions."

Mlssiologv 15 (1987): 31-55.

Torkelson, Max C. "The Imperative of Change." Ministry. October

1974, 24-25.

Torrance, James B. "Authority, Scripture and Tradition." Evangelical

Quarterly 59 (1987): 245-51

Town, N. Z., H. H. Hall, and W. W. Eastman. The Publishing Department

Story. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1947.

Troxel, A. Burge. "Accountability without Bondage: Shepherd

Leadership in the Biblical Church." Journal of Christian
Education 2 (1982): 39.

Tuell, Jack M. The Organization of the United Methodist Church. Rev

ed. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1973.

Tutu, Desmond. "Mission in the 1980s." Occasional Bulletin of

Missionary Research 4 (1980): 12-13.

Tuveson, Ernest L. Redeemer Nation: The Idea of America's Millennial

Role. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.

Tyner, Mitchell A. "Can Adventists Continue to Discriminate in

Hiring?" Spectrum 17 (October 1986): 14-23.

Urresti, Teodoro J., ed. Structures of the Church. New York: Seabury
Press, 1970.

Utuk, Efiong. "From Wheaton to Lausanne: The Road to Modification of

Contemporary Evangelical Mission Theology." Africa
Theological Journal 15 (1986): 151-65

Valantasis, Richard. "Body, Hierarchy, and Leadership in Chrysostom's

"On the Priesthood.'" Greek Orthodox Theological Review 30
(1985): 455-71.

Valentine, Gilbert M. "A. G. Daniells, Administrator, and the

Development of Conference Organization in Australia." In
Symposium on Adventist History in the South Pacific: 1885-
1918. ed. Arthur J. Ferch, 76-91. Wahroonga, New South
Wales: South Pacific Division of Seventh-day Adventists,
1986.
 425

Vande Vere, Emmet K. Rugged Heart: The Story of George I. Butler.

Nashville, Tenn.: Southern Publishing Association, 1979.

________ Windows: Selected Readings in Seventh-dav Adventist Church

History 1844-1922. Nashville, Tenn.: Southern Publishing
Association, 1975.

-------- "Years of Expansion, 1865-1885." In Adventism in America.

ed. Gary Land, 66-94. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

-------- "Years of Growth and Crisis, 1875-1900." Review and

Herald. Anniversary Issue, November 1975, 10-11.

Van Dolson, Leo R. "The Adventist Church in the Eighties." Ministry.

April 1978, 19-20.

Van Engen, Charles E. The Growth of the True Church. An Analysis of

the Ecclesioloev of Church Growth Theory. Amsterdam: Rodopi,
1981.

Van Horne, John. "Why Did Church Lawyers Use Hierarchical Language?"
Spectrum 9 (March 1978): 23-29.

Vaucher, Alfred. "M. B. Czechowski--His Relationship with the General

Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and the First Day
Adventists." In Michael Belina Czechowski 1818-1876. eds.
Rajmund L. Dabrowski amd Bert B. Beach, 132-59. Warsaw,
Poland: Znaki Czarsu Publishing House, 1979.

Verkuyl, Johannes. "Mission in the 1980s." Occasional Bulletin of

Missionary Research 3 (1979): 93-94.

Verryn, T. D. "The Mission of the Church and Reconciliation within

Ecclesiastical Structures." Mlssionalia 7 (1979): 65-77.

Vick, Edward W. H. "Against Isolationism: The Church's Relation to

the World." Spectrum 8 (March 1976): 38-40.

-------- "Observations on the Adventism of Seventh-day Adventists."

*n Stature of Christ, ed. Vern Carner and Gary Stanhiser,
196-204. Loma Linda, Calif.: Privately printed, 1970.

Waggoner, Ellet J. Christ and His Righteousness. Oakland, Calif.:

Pacific Press, 1890.

• The Church: Its Organization. Ordinances, and Discipline.

Oakland, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1886.
 426

Waggoner, Joseph H. "The Church." 17-part series in Review and

Herald. 21 April 1885, 249; 28 April 1885, 264-65; 5 May
1885, 280-81; 12 May 1885, 297-98; 19 May 1885, 313-14; 26
May 1885, 329; 2 June 1885, 345-46; 9 June 1885, 360-61; 16
June 1885, 376-77; 23 June 1885, 392-93; 14 July 1885, 440;
28 July 1885, 470-71; 4 August 1885, 488-89; 18 August 1885,
520-21; 25 August 1885, 537-38; 1 September 1885, 552-53; 8
September 1885, 568-69.

Waggoner, Joseph H.., James S. White, John N. Loughborough, E. W.

Shortridge, Joseph Bates, J. B. Frisbie, M. E. Cornell, Moses
Hull, and John Byington, "Conference Address; Organization."
Review and Herald. 11 June 1861, 21-22.

Wagner, C. Peter. On the Crest of the Wave; Becoming a World

Christian. Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books, 1983.

________. Your Church Can Grow. Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books, 1976.

Walden, Ron. "How Hierarchical Views of the Church Emerge." Spectrum

9 (March 1978): 16-22.

Walters, James W. "The Need for Structural Change." Spectrum 14

(March 1984) 14-17.

Warren, Max, ed. To Apply the Gospel: Selections from the Writings of
Henry Venn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Washburn, J. S. "The Author of Order." Review and Herald. 6 June

1907, 9-10.

Watson, David. I Believe in the Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1982.

Watts, Kit. "Global Strategy: Stretching for Jesus." Adventist

Review. 17 December 1987, 5.

________. "What's Happening at the G.C.?" Insight. 9 June 1970, 3-

7.

Watts, Rosemary. "North Pacific Union Reasserts Constitutional

Independence." Spectrum 17 (February 1987): 29-36.

Wearner, Robert G. "Lucy Post: Pioneer in Adventist Missions."

Adventist Review. 3 March 1988, 19-20

Webber, Robert E. The Church in the World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1986.

Weber, Max. Max Weber on Charisma and Institution Building, ed. S. N.

Eisenstadt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.
 427

________. Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. Translated by

A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons; ed. Talcott Parsons.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1947.
Weber, Timothy P. I.lying in the Shadow of the Second Coming:— American
Premillennlalism 1875-1982. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.

Webster, F. C. "Organizational Refinement." Review and Herald. 10

February 1972, 23.

Weisberger, Bernard A. They Gathered at the River: The Story of the

Great Revivalists and Their Impact upon Religion in America.
New York: Harper and Row, 1965.

Wellcome, Isaac C. A History of the Second Advent Movement. Boston.

Advent Christian Publishing Society, 1874.

Whaley, Howard. "The Demands of Change." Evangelical Missions

Quarterly 20 (1984): 276-78.

"What about Reorganization of the North American Division: Interview

with N. C. Wilson." Snectrum 4 (Winter 1972): 15-18.

Wheeler, Barbara G. "What Kind of Leadership for Tomorrow's

Churches?" Action Information 11 (November-December 1985):
7-11.

White, Arthur L. "Early Developments of Church Order." Ministry,

July 1941, 21.

-------- Ellen G, White: The Australian Years. 1891-1900.

Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1983.

-------- Ellen G. White: The F.arlv Elmshaven Years. 1900-1905.

Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981.

--------- Ellen G. White: Messenger to the Remnant. Rev. ed.

Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1969.

-------- "James White--Man Extraordinary." Review and Herald,

Anniversary Issue, November 1975, 20-21.

-------- "The Story of the General Conference of 1901." 3-part

series in Review and Herald. 29 March 1956, 16-18; 5 April
1956, 4-5; 12 April 1956, 3-5.

-------- The Story of the General Conference of 1901. Washington,

D.C.: Ellen G. White Publications, 1962.

White, Ellen G. "Bring an Offering to the Lord." Review and Herald,

26 November 1901, 761-62.
 428

"Centralization.” Review and Herald. 10 December 1903, 8-9.

"The Church: The Property of God." Review and Herald. 17

October 1893, 645-46.

. "Communication from Mrs. White." Review and Herald. 27

August 1861, 101-102.

Desire of Ages. Oakland, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1898.

Early Writings. 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: Review and

Herald, 1963.

Gospel Workers. Oakland, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1892.

"The Great Need of the Holy Spirit." Review and Herald. 16

July 1895, 449-50.

"Lessons from the Life of Solomon--No 5: Order and

Organization." Review and Herald. 12 October 1905, 8-9.

"Lessons from the Past: Centralization." Review and

Herald. 10 December 1903, 8-9.

"Letter to the Brethren at the General Conference, December

19, 1892." Reprinted in "Council Meeting - No. 2." General
Conference Daily Bulletin. 29 January 1893, 22.

Letters to Physicians and Ministers. Washington, D.C.:

Review and Herald, 1904.

Life Sketches of Ellen G. White. Mountain View, Calif.:

Pacific Press, 1914.

"Missionary Enterprise the Object of Christ's Church." 2-

part series in Review and Herald. 30 October 1894, 673-74; 6
November 1894, 688-90.

"No Union between the Church and the World." Review and
Herald. 26 February 1895, 3-4.

"Order in the Church." Review and Herald. 15 April 1880,

241-42.

The Remnant Church. Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press,

1950.

"The Remnant Church Not Babylon.” 4-part series in Review

and Herald. 22 August 1893, 530-31; 29 August 1893, 546-47; 5
September 1893, 562-63; 12 September 1893, 578-79.
 429

________ Selected Messages: Book II. Washington, D.C.: Review and

Herald, 1958.

________. Series A . Payson, Ariz.: Leaves of Autumn Books, 1976.

_________ Series B . Payson, Ariz.: Leaves of Autumn Books, n.d.

_________ "Shall We Colonize around Our Institutions?" Review and

Herald. 2 June 1904, 7-8.

_________ Special Instruction Relating to the Review and Herald

Office and the Work in Battle Creek. [Battle Creek, Mich.:
Review and Herald, 1896.]

-------- Special Instruction to Ministers and Workers. [Battle

Creek, Mich.:Review and Herald, 1895].

-------- Special Testimonies to Ministers and Workers--No. 3 .

Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald, 1895.

-------- Special Testimonies to Ministers and Workers--No. 8 .

Lincoln, Nebr.: College press, 1897.

--------- Special Testimonies to Ministers and Workers--No. 9 .

Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald, 1897.

---.-----Testimonies for the Church. 9 vols. Mountain View,

Calif.: Pacific Press, 1949.

--------- Testimonies to the Church Regarding Individual

Responsibility and Christian Unity. Mountain View, Calif.:
The California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1907.

--------- Testimonies to Ministers. Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific

Press, 1962.

-------- Testimony for the Church: No. 16. Battle Creek, Mich.:
Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing
Association, 1868.

-------- Testimony for the Church No. 25. [Battle Creek, Mich.:
Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing
Association, 1875].

-------- "To Our Missionary Workers." Review and Herald, 8 December

1885, 753-54.

-------- "The Unity of the Church." Review and Herald, 16 June

1885, 369-70.

^ite, H. "National Leadership." Ministry. April 1951, 9-12.

 430

White, James S. "Bible Religion: Auth o r ity V ested in the Church of

Christ." Review and Herald. 22 April 1880, 264.

________. "Bible Religion: The Church of Christ Illustrated by the

Human Body." Review and Herald. 15 April 1880, 248.

________. "Leadership." 4-part series in Signs of the Times. 4 June

1874, 4-5; 11 June 1874, 12; 25 June 1874, 20; 29 June 1874,
28.

"Leadership." Review and Herald. 1 December 1874, 180-81.

"Leadership." In Ellen G. White, Testimony for the Church

No. 25. 181-92. Battle Creek, Mich.: Steam Press of the
Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1875.

"Leadership." Review and Herald. 23 May 1878, 164.

"Leadership." Review and Herald. 13 May 1880, 312.

"Leadership." Review and Herald. 17 June 1880, 392.

"The Light of the World." Review and Herald. 21 April 1863,

164-65.

________. "Making Us a Name." Review and Herald. 29 March 1860, 152.

________. "Organization." Review and Herald. 24 June 1880, 8.

________. "Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society." 15 June 1869,

197.

________. "A World-wide Mission." Review and Herald. 25 August 1874,

76.

White, William C. "Sketches and Memories of James and Ellen G. White:

The Issue over Organization." Review and Herald. 19 March
1936, 7-8.

________. "Sketches and Memories of James and Ellen G. White: The

Movement for Organization Consummated." Review and Herald.
26 March 1936, 6-9.

Whitney, R. E. "Preparation for Church Administration." Ministry.

November 1964, 39.

Widmer, Myron. "AHS Begins Mission Clarification Process." Adventist

Review. 2 June 1988, 14-16.

Wieland, Robert J., and Donald K. Short. 1888 Re-examined. Stratford,

Mo.; Gems of Truth, n.d.
 431

Wilcox, Francis M. "Convention of the Student Volunteer Movement."

Review and Herald. 20 February 1894, 128.

_________ "The Reason for Our Existence as a Denomination." Review

and Herald. 21 September 1911, 6-7.

_________ "The Work in Many Lands." Review and Herald. 10 July 1894,
438.

Wilcox, Milton C. "The Church." Review and Herald. 23 October 1883,

659-60.

--------- "The Church of God." Review and Herald. 19 October 1922,

5-6

___ ______ "The Church of the Living God." 17-part series in Review
and Herald. 28 November 1929, 3-5; 5 December 1929, 7-8; 12
December 1929, 6-7; 19 December 1929, 5-6; 26 December 1929,
6-9; 9 January 1930, 5-7; 23 January 1930, 6-7; 30 January
1930, 8-9; 6 February 1930, 5-7; 13 February 1930, 8-9; 20
February 1930, 8-9; 27 February 1930, 8-9; 6 March 1930, 7-8;
13 March 1930, 8-10; 20 March 1930, 5-6; 27 March 1930, 13-
14; 3 April 1930, 12-13.

Willey, Wayne. "Cut Number of Unions, Conferences in Half." Spectrum

16 (February 1986): 63.

Willimon, William H. "Corpus Christ!: Carnal Thoughts on a Spiritual

Day; Tension between Definitions of the Church and the Brute
Sociological Fact of the Church." Christian Century 98
(1981): 634-36.

Wilson, Barrie A. "Ecclesiological Models: An Epistemological

Examination." Encounter 40 (1979): 327-39.

Wilson, Marlene. How to Mobilize Church Volunteers. Minneapolis:

Augsburg Publishing House, 1983.

Wilson, Bryan. "Sect or Denomination: Can Adventism Maintain Its

Identity?" Spectrum 7 (Spring 1975): 34-43.

Wilson, Neal C. "Attacks on the Church." Adventist Review. 13 May

1982, 3, 10.

-------- "The Davenport Case." Ministry. April 1983, 16-19.

-------- "I Believe in Church Organization." Review and Herald. 3

November 1949, 10.

— ------- "Leadership and Authority." Adventist Review. 4 October

1979, 3.
 432

________. "Preserving Unity World Wide.” Adventist Review. 1

November 1979, 8-10.

________. "Rationale for a Special Relationship." Spectrum 15

(December 1984): 22-24.

Wilson, Samuel, and John Stewart, eds. Mission Handbook: North

American Protestant Ministries Overseas. Monrovia, Calif.:
Missions Advanced Research and Communications Center, 1986.

Winner, William L. Gospel Simplicity: The Need of the Hour in

Personal Piety, in Doctrine, in Organization.__ A Plea from
the Pew for a Complete Acceptance of Bible Standards.
Boulder, Colo.: n.p., 1906.

Winter, Ralph D. "The Two Structures of God's Redemptive Mission."

Missiologv 2 (1974): 121-39.

________. "Protestant Mission Societies: The American Experience."

Missiologv 7 (1979): 139-78.

________. "The Unfinished Task: A New Perspective." World

Evangelization 15 (March-April 1988): 9-12.

________. "Unreached Peoples Update, Where Are We Now." World

Evangelization 15 (March-April 1988): 4-5.

Woelfel, James. "Indwelling and Exile; Types of Religious and Secular

World-orientation." American Journal of Theology and
Philosophy 3 (1987): 93-108.

.
"Women in Early Adventism." Adventist Review. 4 February 1988, 16-
21
Wood, Kenneth H. "Ultimate Authorities That Christians Accept."
Review and Herald. 4 August 1966, 13-14.

Worgul, George S. "People of God, Body of Christ: Pauline

Ecclesiological Contrasts." Biblical Theology Bulletin 12
(1982): 24-28.

World Wide Evangelization. The Urgent Business of the Church:

Addresses Delivered before the Fourth International
Convention of the Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign
Missions Toronto. Canada. February 26-March 2, 1902. New
York: Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions, 1902.

Worley, Robert C. A Gathering of Strangers: Understanding the Life of

Your Church. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976.

________. Change in the Church: A Source of Hope. Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1971.
 433

________. Dry Bones Breathe. Chicago: The Center for the Study of
Church Organizational Behavior (McCormick Theological
Seminary), 1978.

Wright, Conrad. "The Growth of Denominational Bureaucracies: A

Neglected Aspect of American Church History." Harvard
Theological Review 77 (1984): 177-94.

Wyke, Clement H. "Is the Church Following the Wrong Models?"

Christian Ministry 17 (November 1986): 30-31.

Yamamori, Tetsunao. God's New Envoys. Portland, Ore.: Multnomah

Press, 1987.

Yearbook of the Seventh-dav Adventist Medical Missionary and

Benevolent Association. 1896. N.p., [1897].

Yohannan, K. P. "Americans Can't Win the World for Christ."

Christianity Today. 30 November 1986, p. 15.

Yost, F. Donald. "A. G. Daniells: The Making of a General Conference

President." Adventist Heritage 6 ( Summer 1979): 56-58.

Yost, Frank H. "The First-Century Church Organized." Review and

Herald. 20 February 1958, 4-5.
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SEMINARY
DOCTORAL DISSERTATION SERIES
VOLUME 15

SS011947559

Cover Design: Heter u rn a ra uesign

äU H v jjxv»-«.----------
970326 DOCTRINAL Rtl: 14.9b
OLIVER B 001