p. 488 | Church Order by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Aug 14, 1884

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 10, No. 31.

Church Order.

By Editor

WHEN William Miller preached the doctrine of the advent near, he disclaimed any intention to form a new church; he never made any effort in that direction. After the passing of the set time, in 1844, when most of the churches turned so decidedly against the advent doctrine that its believers had generally to separate themselves from their communions, they were yet opposed to the idea of forming themselves into a church, and suffered much from contention and confusion rather than organize into another denomination. Nearly all of them considered that they were ill used and oppressed by the several churches to which they had belonged, and they feared to risk an organization which might be the means of again restricting their religious liberty. It is truth that the Adventists, of all classes, never took kindly to the idea of organization; and some of them to this day have scarcely enough of the form of organization to preserve order in their own midst.

The Seventh-day Adventists were not an exception to the above statement. They put off the work of organization as long as they possibly could. At first they formed churches on the most simple plan they could devise, each being separate from all others, having no defined relation to one another. And when it was seen by most of those who traveled and visited the various churches that they needed in some way to recognize the existence and authority of their sister churches, which could be best done by organizing Conferences, the plan was opposed by some of our strongest brethren, almost up to the very time of its consummation.

It was first found necessary to organize churches that it might be known to all who were and who were not accepted as brethren and sisters in the faith. We were often troubled by fanatical spirits who represented themselves as Seventh-day Adventists, but who, by their conduct and influence, misrepresented the people and the faith. Without some kind of an organization it could not be determined who were to be acknowledged as members; and of course discipline could not be administered.

In this condition we stood for a number of years, having churches formed in a large number of States; but as far as discipline or concert of action was concerned, we found ourselves crippled and bound. We were amongst those who were slow to adopt the idea of Conference organization, but we were converted to it by the necessities of the case; by the prevalence of confusion and disorder which we had no power to correct.

From the very beginning of our work, fanatics pressed themselves amongst us, professing great love for the truth. Such persons have no lack of zeal, however greatly they may lack knowledge (Rom. 10:2) and prudence. And they are generally "wandering stars" (Jude 13) going from church to church, their show of zeal warming the hearts of believers toward them, while they may not remain long enough in any place for their true character to be fully known. If the church where they resided, or where they were well known, endeavored to restrain them, they had no power to control them beyond their own neighborhood, and no means to secure action on the part of other churches. This was an evil which we lamented, and yet took no steps to prevent it for some years.

Another difficulty presented itself. When a church found it necessary to withdraw from one who walked disorderly, he could easily apply for membership in another, and thus the cause suffer on from his evil influence. We remember an instance which did much to secure our action in favor of more thorough organization. A certain church withdrew from a member because of his persistent disorderly walk; he applied to another church for admittance; the church to which he had belonged warned them of the consequence if they received him; but, instead of being thankful for the warning, they resented it as an interference with their rights, saying that they alone were to judge whom they should admit to church fellowship. In one sense they were right; every church is to judge of its own membership; but in case of a great misjudgment, and also in case of mal-administration of discipline, justice can be done to the truth and to all parties by having some opportunity of appeal.

In the case above referred to we laid before them plainly the danger of the course they were about to pursue, but they would not be persuaded; they feared an infringement upon their freedom of action, and admitted the applicant. They had abundant reason to regret their course, as the man soon involved the church in trouble which nearly proved its ruin. Such things caused the friends of the work to resolve to form Conferences; and we drew up a constitution for a General Conference, which was approved by the brethren, and adopted, and although it served its purpose well for a score of years, with very few changes, it has only recently been changed in one point where it should have been changed years ago; thus showing the conservative spirit of the S. D. Adventists—quite the contrary of the judgment people pass upon them. Conservatism is a good quality; but all good qualities may be abused. In the case to which we refer, the cause has suffered because of an unwillingness to change that which served a good purpose in the infancy of the work, when we had few believers, no State Conferences, no missionary societies, no camp-meetings, no associations of any kind, and no school or health organizations.

It is now adopted as a rule that a person coming from another church must bring a letter in order to be admitted to membership. Without this he must be proved before he can be accepted. There is no injustice in this, for if a member is in good standing, there will be no difficulty in obtaining a letter; but if he is not, then the cause should be protected. No one who loves the cause, and is at all zealous for the right, will find fault with this arrangement. This is, or should be, invariably followed where members change their residence.

But it is frequently the case that our members go on journeys to be absent from the church weeks and even months. And they may visit other churches, yet not change their residence, and, of course, not wish to transfer their membership. In such cases they should receive a "traveling letter," good for three months, to be renewed on application if needed for a longer time. It is the duty of every member to communicate with the church every three months. In the church of Oakland we give traveling letters, and all churches ought to give them to traveling members.

Now we wish to introduce another point which has not yet received the consideration which it demands. We refer to ministers moving from place to place without taking the necessary papers from the Conferences to which they belong. We believe that Conference officers and ministers ought to set an example of good order. If a church should not receive a member from another church without a letter recommending him as a member, much less should a Conference receive as a minister a person coming from another Conference without a recommendation from that Conference as a minister. We have seen injury done to the cause on account of carelessness or imprudence in this respect. And it is not sufficient that the person bring a church letter. It often happens that a church may give a letter certifying that the bearer is a member in good standing, yet if the same person should apply for a letter recommending him as a preacher he could not get a vote in favor of it. Why, then, should another church, or another Conference, accept him as a preacher on his church letter?

But if the person has had credentials as a minister, the case is no better. If his standing is good, and if there are sufficient reasons for moving from one State to another, he will have no difficulty in procuring a certificate from his Conference officers to that effect. And unless the person and his circumstances are well known, we believe that such a certificate should be required in all cases.

Our people have found it advisable to consult the General Conference in regard to the removal of ministers, and we believe that this is the wise and prudent course. We are aware that some oppose this idea because (they say) it gives too much "authority" to that body. But we have no fears that our General Conference, or its officers, will act in a dictatorial or haughty spirit. It has not been so in the past. They have acted more as advisers than directors; and having the whole field under their constant inspection, they are better qualified to advise than any others. Besides the constitution makes them advisers in all such matters. We have never found any to complain in such cases except restless ones who do not take kindly to order or restraint; but we want order for their benefit as well as for others. "God is not the author of confusion." He has given us strict orders in his word concerning discipline, and laid upon the church the responsibility of maintaining it. And respect for the authority of God, and regard for the welfare of the churches, both demand that we should heed these orders.