Organization-No. 5 by Arthur G. Daniells

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Feb 28, 1907

Organization—No. 5

By Arthur G. Daniells

A Brief Account of Its History in the Development of the Cause of the Third Angel’s Message

The opposition our people felt to organization was dealt with fairly. It was not arrogantly silenced by a large majority, nor overridden by the dominating power of a minority. The whole question of organization received careful, serious study, and free, full, and open discussion. This resulted in convincing the large majority of our people that instead of being the evil, dangerous thing it had been represented to be, organization was a wise and necessary provision given by the Lord for the welfare of his cause in the earth.

More or less of the discussion of this question was carried on in the columns of the REVIEW. Some who were opposed to organization made use of the paper to give their reasons for their opposition, and also to make suggestions as to how to manage the affairs of the cause without organization. Those who believed that organization was necessary gave their reasons for the position they held. It is mainly from the articles that appeared in the REVIEW on this question that we are able to trace the history of this phase of our cause prior to the time organization was effected.

The first response made to Elder White’s call for organization came from our esteemed brother, Elder J. N. Loughborough. This response was prompt, definite, and positive, and was decidedly in favor of organization. It appeared in the second number of the paper printed after the call for organization was made. After giving the situation a careful review, Brother Loughborough said: “I am in favor of organizing by law, that we may be able to hold and legally protect our church property.”

During the forty-six years that have since passed, our brother has been a firm, consistent advocate of gospel organization, and has practised what he has advocated. And who could reasonably ask for greater liberty than he has enjoyed while adhering to the details of our denominational organization?

The next response to the call for organization came from one of the associate editors of the REVIEW. His position was expressed as follows:—

Brother White has asked the brethren to speak in relation to his proposition to secure the property of the church. I do not know precisely what measure he intends in his suggestion, but understand it is to get incorporated as a religious body according to law. For myself I think it would be wrong to “make a name,” since that lies at the foundation of Babylon. I do not think that God would approve of it. . . .

Brother White asks for suggestions for a better plan. He has already proposed that the books should be sent out into different States. This I think would be well. Let them be distributed around for safe keeping, and for convenience. I would take one hundred dollars’ worth, and many others in the wide field would do the same. Then the office with what remains, after those engaged therein have performed their duty faithfully, can be safely trusted in the hands of Him who owns the whole.

Those that lend money to the office, lend it to the Lord, and they must trust the Lord for it. If he sees fit to let them lose it here, if they are faithful he will repay them hereafter. He will not fail. He has no lack of means. And he will do what is best for those that trust in him.—Review and Herald, Vol. XV, page 140, March 22, 1860.

In the same article this writer reviews Elder Loughborough’s article, in the course of which he says:—

We can trust each other, thank the Lord! and if any man proves a Judas, we can still bear the loss and trust the Lord. . . .

The responsibility of the office debts and liabilities ought not, and in my estimation, does not, rest upon Brother White. I am glad he has spoken upon this point. If any have means in the office that they are unwilling to trust to the Lord and his people as a body, without making any individual or individuals responsible for the same, I hope they will withdraw it. The church can raise the amount and pay them off. There may be those that need what they have lent to the office. Such certainly should be paid.—Id., page 141.

The main reason here given against organizing is that in doing so they would be obliged to take a name by which to be known, and in doing this they would become a part of Babylon.

The suggestion made for storing and safe-guarding the books from the time they were printed until they were sold was that they be distributed in lots of one hundred dollars’ worth among the homes of the brethren and sisters in the different States, to be held until called for. Such a suggestion shows how very limited and unbusinesslike were the views of some at least regarding the great and important place the publishing work was to occupy in this cause.

As to the debts of the publishing house, the writer believed that these should not rest upon any specific person or persons, but upon all the believers generally, and that all who were not willing to trust the Lord and this unnamed body of believers would better keep their money in their own care.

The brother who took this position against organization was one of the editors of the REVIEW, and a very conscientious and influential minister in the Eastern States, where the majority of our people lived. His public opposition had the effect of confirming many in their anti-organization views.

Elder White replied to this statement in an article filling seven columns of the REVIEW. By this time the question was before the people in real earnest, and it never ceased to be studied and discussed until the great majority of our people recognized the necessity of organization, and applied it to churches, conferences, and institutions. A. G. DANIELLS.