Untitled article by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Apr 2, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 14.

The Church. No. 7.

By Editor

NO QUESTION has ever arisen among us in regard to church order, which has presented greater difficulties than that of the jurisdiction of the officers. We will examine the points which have been raised in actual cases.

1. Does the ordination of an elder of a church qualify him to act as elder of any other church? Answer: The ordination of any officer cannot go beyond the extent of the office to which he was elected. When the church of A elects an elder, it does not elect him to serve as elder of the church of B. It is entirely out of the power of any church to elect an officer to serve in any other church. And, of course, no man can be properly ordained to fill an office to which he was not elected. It has been held by some that if an elder of one church transfers his membership to another church, he may be called by that other church to act as elder by virtue of his previous ordination. But we cannot concur in that opinion. It cannot justly be said that the action of the second church is a ratification of the act of the first church, for the action of the first church had no reference whatever to the exercise of official authority in any other church. If it should be announced by the church of A that it elected and ordained an elder to act, not only in that church, but also in the church of B, the latter would resent the action, not only as uncourteous, but as illegal; it would be a usurpation. And all must agree with the statement herein made, that ordination qualifies a person to act in the office to which he was elected, and in no other. Any other rule than this opens the way for abuses and difficulties between churches.

It has been questioned whether it is proper to ordain a person the second time to the same office. But, as we have shown, it is not the same office. An officer in one jurisdiction does not and cannot hold the same office that is held by another officer in another jurisdiction. Each must be qualified in his own jurisdiction. And it will be remembered that when we considered the subject of ordination, attention was called to the fact that Barnabas and Paul, two well-accredited ministers, were ordained to a special work, not outside of their ministry, but in the ministry in which they were already engaged. There can be no objection to setting apart a person a second time, when called to fill an office which was not contemplated in his first election and ordination.

But other questions are involved. If a church has no deacon, is it lawful for the elder to attend to the duties pertaining to the office of a deacon? It is. The higher officer may discharge the duties of the lower, especially when the lower office is vacant, though the lower cannot legally discharge the duties of the higher. This is well understood, and is so held in the election. And, the position of the elder makes it obligatory upon him to act under such circumstances. He is the "overseer" of the church; he is to "care for the church;" his office is to "feed the flock," to strengthen and build it up by all the means within his reach, or in his power. And, in the absence of a deacon, were he to neglect those things to which a deacon should properly attend, the church would no doubt complain that their overseer was unfaithful; that he did not properly care for his charge. Nothing further is needed to show that our usage in this respect is correct.

Again: Does not the rule which confines the action of an elder within his own church, admit of an exception? We think it does; but in the exceptional case the proper guards or restrictions must be recognized and applied, or the rule will be utterly broken down and confusion be the result. If the church of A has no elder, and wishes the service of an elder for a specified duty on a special occasion, it may secure the services of the elder of the church of B, by (1) extending the request to the church of B for the help of its elder on such occasion, and (2) procuring the consent of the Conference, or its Executive Committee, to receive the service of such neighboring elder. Now it is well known, and everywhere received as just, that the Conference Committee has a right at its own discretion to send a minister to aid a church in any emergency. But if all the ministers are otherwise engaged, and it would prove detrimental to the interests of the cause to call any of them from their labor, then we hold that the course here pointed out would be allowable.

But we do not consider that the call would be allowable without the consent of the Conference Committee, for to that committee is given the general oversight of the cause in the whole field, and in all the churches. Nor do we think that it would be proper for the Conference Committee, for want of a minister, to send a local elder of one church to assist, and act for another church, without the consent and acquiescence of that other church; for such action would be liable to lead to unpleasant complications in or between the churches. But where the committee and the churches are fully agreed in regard to the action, no unpleasant relations can result. The object of all action and of all organization is the prosperity of the cause,—the welfare of the churches,—and no rule should be so arbitrary as to work ill to the cause. And, on the other hand, no plea of the necessity of the cause should be admitted which opens the door to abuses, and introduces confusion into the churches.

The duties of the elder include the administration or celebration of the ordinances. It is our usage to have a minister attend each quarterly meeting of each church, as far as convenient. But that is not always possible. And when it is not possible, those churches which have no elder, if there are any such, should have the precedence in regard to help from the Conference. Because, without such help they would be deprived of having the ordinances celebrated. In case the church has no elder, and no minister can be had at the indicated time for holding quarterly meeting, it is custom, and properly too, to hold such meeting at some other time, when the necessary help can be obtained.

Another question of great importance was brought to the attention of our last General Conference, and judgment was passed upon it. "Shall local elders and licentiates among us be permitted to solemnize marriage?" This question was duly considered, and decided in the negative. And we think this decision is just and eminently discreet. The laws of some of the States are quite too loose on the subject of marriage; and it would be too much to expect that every local officer, or inexperienced licentiate, would have discretion to act with all that men and judgment which the importance of the subject demands. He is fortunate indeed who has often solemnized the rite of marriage, and can look back and see no cause for regret in any case. In our ministry we have refused several applicants, and yet, with all our care, we have abiding regrets concerning a few cases. We are not sorry that our General Conference hedges around this matter with great care; our fear is that some of our ministers will be only too glad of the privilege of officiating at a marriage, and not investigate the circumstances as they should. The laws of some States will not permit licentiates or local elders to marry, while others will. But in any State such action will be held as unauthorized, disorderly, among Seventh-day Adventists.

There is little more to be said, than has been said, of the duties of the deacon. The declaration of "the twelve" (Acts 6:2-4) has been universally accepted as the key to the duties of the deacons. They are to attend to such secular or temporal matters of the church as would interfere with the proper discharge of the duties of those who should give their time "to prayer and to the ministry of the word." It was the multiplicity of such secular duties which gave rise to the call for such an officer. In like manner now, the number of deacons required in any church depends on the amount of labor required, or on the circumstances and size of the church. And in small churches, where there are diligent and efficient elders, it is frequently the case that no deacons are needed.

A delegate from a certain State, at one of the sessions of our General Conference, presented the following question: "Has a deacon authority to baptize outside of his own church?" We have promised to notice questions raised in actual cases; yet nothing but a strong sense of duty would lead us to bring this one before the public, as we do not like to subject our people to the mortification of having it known that occurrences amongst us have given rise to the consideration of such a question. No person is qualified to hold the office who does not know that a deacon has no authority to baptize at all—either in his own church or anywhere else.

From this circumstance we draw a lesson in favor of church organization. If such abuses of church order and official authority occur in spite of organization, what might we not expect if we had no organization? The injunction of the apostle is to "Let everything be done decently and in order." That this may be carried out we must have concert in action; that is, there must be agreement—there must be some plan on which we can unite, for if each acts independently of the judgment of all others there can be little else but confusion. We are aware that this idea of yielding their independence of spirit and of action is very displeasing to some, but to none who have imbibed the true spirit of the gospel and are instructed in Christian life and duty by the word of truth. "Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility," is an order which must come very unwelcome to those who love their own way, and despise the idea of submission. "In honor preferring one another," is a duty which they know not how to learn. But this is only one item of the much that may be produced showing the necessity of church and conference organization.

The question has been asked, Is it the duty of the deacon to pass the bread and the cup at the celebration of the Lord's supper? That does not come within the duties of his office. But if the officer who breaks the bread to the congregation wishes to commit this to some one, it seems most fitting to designate the deacon to perform the duty. If a minister officiates, he should request the local elder or elders to pass the elements. If the elder is officiating he may ask the deacon to do so. We say it seems fitting to call upon the deacon, if there are no elders, or if more assistance is needed, inasmuch as the qualifications of the deacons are of a high order, and they have been chosen by the congregation to an important position; and if any must be called to perform such an act, probably the whole church would be better satisfied to have their deacons selected.