Untitled article by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Apr 9, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 15.

The Church. No. 8.

By Editor

THE system of church government among Seventh-day Adventists, as among Baptists, is the congregational; each church is to judge of the qualifications of its own members. Any system may be abused; of course this may be. There is a certain extent to which every man is and should be independent; and yet the expression of Pope is strictly true: "God never made an independent man." All are mutually dependent. All Christians are Christ's free men; yet so as to be "subject one to another." And every church is an independent church; yet not so as to endanger the cause of truth or disregard the general welfare. A spirit of independence—or that which is called such—is generally a spirit of selfishness or recklessness. As the best teachers are the most teachable, so they who enjoy the most perfect freedom in this world are they who have "a meek and quiet spirit."

We have seen great trouble in churches because of abuses of the congregational system. The church of A disfellowshiped a member for good cause. He left without any spirit of confession; without the least appearance of humility. He then presented himself for membership to the neighboring church of B, taking the precaution, as is usually the case, to secure the sympathies of some of the members. Hearing of this, the church of A very properly, and very kindly, acquainted them with the circumstances, and warned them against receiving one who left their communion under censure for wrongs for which he manifested no penitence. But certain members in B said they only were the judges of the competency of their members; that it was an infringement on their rights and privileges for the church of A to try to control their actions in the reception of members. Happening to be present, we warned them of the error of their course, and of the evils which could not fail to be the result. But in vain. They resented any interference with their right to act with perfect freedom in the matter.

They did not have to wait long for reason to repent of their unwise course. In this case no one tried to infringe upon their rights. They were left free to act. It is only the duty of every Christian and of every church to give to their fellow-Christian or sister church any information which will enable them to act understandingly, and save them from trouble. And it is the duty of all to avail themselves of the information given, and to so use it as to secure the church against trouble and to save the cause from reproach.

Another case. A new church was organized, and there was residing not far from the locality a member of a church some miles distant. With the same loose ideas of judging of its own members, this member was received without his having any letter of dismissal or recommendation from his own church, and also placed in office in the new church. We were asked our opinion of the proceeding.

The answer is: This course is very irregular; it is calculated to bring in confusion, and strife between the churches. It needs but little consideration to make this appear. Suppose the older church, the church to which he properly belongs, learns of his doing that which is calculated to bring reproach to the cause. Duty requires it to take the proper steps in disciplining him. But the new church resents this, as an unlawful interference with her members and her officer. A conflict of jurisdiction arises, and contention and strife must ensue. And unless the minister who has charge of the case for its adjustment, has more wisdom than the one who organized the new church, unmeasured evil to the churches and to individuals will be the result.

In this last case the error was on the part of the minister who effected the organization; yet perhaps blame ought to rest in part on the officers of the Conference who committed such an important trust to inexperienced hands—to those not properly instructed in their duties. In the first case cited the error rested entirely with the independent members, as it was before we had any Conference organized. They ought to have had discernment to know that their course would involve the church in trouble; but lacking this, they ought to have listened to the counsel of those who had experience in such matters. But when they rejected counsel, there was no further step which we could take, had circumstances rendered it advisable or necessary, as we had no Conferences then yet organized. Our Conference organization is the balance-wheel, the check to prevent mal-administration of discipline in the churches. It enables an aggrieved party in any action to appeal to a body of disinterested and experienced persons; a body representing all the churches in a State, or within certain bounds, the members of which are mostly outside of the personal feelings connected with any given case, and who have the opportunity of examining a case under the most favorable circumstances. This shows the benefit of an organization wider than the limits of individual churches. Not a body above the churches, but one representing the churches—composed of the churches, or constituted by the churches. In this the united wisdom of the churches meets to consult, to plan, to determine, and to work for the general good.

There is one drawback which ought to be mentioned. Respect for the Conference, and confidence in its decisions, are greatly lowered by the practice of some churches to elect as delegates to represent them, those who expect to attend the meeting, without regard to their qualifications and fitness for the service. Indeed we have known churches to send delegates who only had an average standing at home by a great stretch of charity. It ought to be understood that a church which does such an unwise thing does not bring reproach upon itself alone, but also upon the whole body in which such unworthy persons are called to sit. It were much better that a church be not represented at all than to be so sadly misrepresented. Delegates should be men (or women) of the best judgment, faithful to their trust, and consecrated to the work of God. The decisions of a body of such persons will be respected, and peace and prosperity will be with the churches.

Some churches have adopted the rule of laying over for one week all applications for membership, except those by letter. This is a prudent step. It very frequently is the case that a person is proposed for membership of whom nearly all the church are ignorant, and a week's delay gives all an opportunity to make inquiry. And it is sometimes the case that some member has some objection to receiving an applicant which he would not wish to bring in open church, and if the application were acted upon at once, the person would be received under doubts, and the action might result in an unpleasant and unprofitable relation. True, in some cases there may be no doubt; the whole church may know the applicant and be satisfied. Yet if the rule be made invariable, and applied to all alike, there will be no chance for jealousy to arise, nor complaints of partiality to be made. The subject of exercising proper care in admitting members into a church has already been noticed, but it can hardly be emphasized too strongly. Personal feelings should never be allowed to intrude themselves. The fear of future trouble should never lead us to do injustice to any one; but it should lead us to deal justly and faithfully with all, and to prayerfully regard the peace of the church and the welfare of the cause as above all other considerations.