p. 452 | THE CHURCH by John Norton Loughborough

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 16, 1901

THE CHURCH.

By John Norton Loughborough

Numerical Representation and Committees.

ELDER J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

“For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality.” 2 Cor. 8: 13, 14.

The thought here expressed by the apostle for raising means for the needy, and for the support of the gospel work, contains a grand principle on which the Church could act. That is the principle of equality. That equality is not exact quantity from each individual, rich or poor, or exact number from each company, whether few or many; but in proportion to circumstances, or number. Greenfield, in his Greek Lexicon, defines the Greek word isótēs, rendered equality in this text, “equal proportion,” and he gives 2 Cor. 8: 13, 14, as an illustration of this meaning. The same term occurring in Col. 4: 1, he renders “fairness, equity, what is equitable.”

Seventh-day Adventists, when deciding upon the point of order relating to delegate representation in our General and State Conferences, sought to follow this principle of “equality,” or proportionate representation, so that all the doings should be with fairness to every company, whether great or small.

In the month of September, 1862, the Michigan Conference held its first annual session in Monterey. Here for the first time was presented the idea of churches being received by vote into Conferences, as members are voted into churches. Seventeen churches in the State had already been organized, and these were by vote taken into the Conference; and all members of those churches who were present were accepted, by vote, as delegates.

At the same Conference, the plan was adopted of paying ministers a certain sum per week for services rendered. The ministers, on their part, were required to report the time spent in labor in the Conference, with their receipts and expenses; and the Conference receiving such report was to make proper settlement. An auditing committee was selected, who settled with the Michigan ministers for the year then closed.

May 20, 1863, a General Conference was held in Battle Creek, Mich. It was the first session of that body in which the delegates bore credentials from their respective States. The representation was not, however, on the ground of numerical basis. The States represented on this occasion were Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, and Ohio.

On looking over this delegation to this Conference, it was apparent to all that there was no “equality” in accepting all the delegates that any church should be pleased to send, or for the State where the General Conference might be held to accept as delegates all their members present at the meeting. In this gathering, 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.

May 21 a General Conference constitution was adopted, and on the same day a State constitution was recommended to the State Conferences, and adopted in a session of the Michigan Conference. These constitutions provided a numerical basis for delegate representation in the Conferences and in the General Conference. There was not a dissenting voice to such a plan for selecting delegates, and the sweet blessing of God, sensibly present, seemed to indorse the movement made.

Thus step by step, the message advanced, and each move in bringing in system and order tended to strengthen and consolidate what had already been undertaken. With a continual increase of membership, there was also a steady and continued growth in the finances. The report of the publishing association, made May 16 of that year, showed that in the two years of its existence the property at the Office had increased from five thousand to twenty thousand dollars, and that one fourth of this was actual earnings of the Review and Herald publishing work; as fifteen thousand dollars was all that had ever been furnished by our people, either as stock or donations.

The plan first adopted in selecting Conference officers was the same as that recommended in organizing a church. The minister organizing, was to select a committee of two or three consecrated brethren of ability and good judgment, and unitedly they were to look over the membership list, seeking wisdom from God as to who were best qualified to fill the offices of the church. The names were then put in nomination before the church, who were to consider them, and elect these, or others, if, in their judgment, there were others better qualified. The same plan was pursued in selecting Conference officers, save that the president named a committee to act aside from himself. As the work enlarged, and numbers increased, the nominating committees were usually five in number, instead of three.

The first public objection to this plan known to the writer occurred Feb. 15, 16, 1872, in Bloomfield, Cal., at the organization of the California State Conference. There three professed Sabbath-keepers publicly raised objections to the chairman of the meeting—who had been chosen by delegates present—appointing the committee on nominations, credentials, and resolutions. In a stormy manner, and with a bitter spirit, these men claimed that such naming of committees, and in fact, the naming of men for office, should be left open to the whole church, for them to name candidates, as was done in political meetings; then let all have a chance to speak, and ballot to see who would get the highest number of votes, etc.

These men in a turbulent manner pressed their views, hardly giving opportunity for either Brother or Sister White, who were both present, to say anything. In their remarks these men often said they “did not believe in one-man power.” Finally Brother White obtained the floor, and calmly said to the leading one of the three, “I see you do not believe in one-man power, unless you can be that one man.” Brother and Sister White openly condemned the course these men proposed in the matter of nominating and electing officers, and indorsed the plan our people were then pursuing.

To show how the Lord regarded the opposition of these men to the system of church order established among this people, we quote the following from a message sent to the leading one: “You will one day realize what you have lost by placing yourself in a defiant position, warring in spirit against the servants of God. Your bitterness of feeling toward Elder H is astonishing. He has endured, and sacrificed, and toiled on this coast to do the work of God. But in your blindness, while unconsecrated in heart and life, you have ventured, in connection with I and J, to handle the servant of God in a cruel manner. . . .” “Satan has been using you as his agent to insinuate doubts, and to reiterate insinuations and misrepresentations which have originated in an unsanctified heart, which God would have cleansed from its pollution. But you refused to be instructed, refused correction, rejected reproof, and followed your own will and way.”—“Testimonies for the Church,” Vol. IV, page 229.

This testimony clearly indorses the position of the Lord’s servants in the Conference at Bloomfield, and as clearly condemns the course of the three men who there set themselves in battle array against it.

The point involved in this part of the “system” of order, is in having committees to nominate officers, etc. The mode of selecting such committees has varied from time to time. The plan which has seemed to give the best satisfaction, both in the General Conference and in the State Conferences, has been for the whole Conference committee to select a list of the various committees to be announced by the chairman.

In one or two instances where the “one-man power” was feared, the Conferences have adopted the laborious plan of having all the delegates ballot for a committee who should select and announce the nominating committee. During the past year the writer learned of one church which had been well equipped with good officers; but some of its members were pressing the sentiment of no nominating committees, choosing rather to “let the Lord guide without man’s judgment or reasoning in the matter. To do this, it would not do to even ballot for the officers.” They decided that the name of each and every member of the church must be written on separate cards. After the cards were all placed in a hat, while praying, one brother should take from the hat the first card touched. The Lord left them to learn the folly of “leaving to Him what He had left to them.” Why would He give us the qualifications of officers, if He would choose them independently of our thought? This church wanted five officers, including the officers for the Sabbath-school and the missionary society. Out of five drawings from the hat, four times the name of a little girl was drawn, who had not the ability for filling even one of the offices.

That church learned a lesson, and decided best to have the old plan carried out, and called for a minister to come and set them in order. This was done in the usual way. The last report from that company was, “All harmonious and prospering now.”