p. 172 | General Conference by Editor

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 28, 1863

General Conference.

By Editor

A FEW weeks only and our General Conference will be in session. Delegates are being appointed to this assembly from different States, and our people are looking forward to it as the most important meeting ever held by the Seventh-day Adventists.

The great object of this contemplated meeting, as far as it has been expressed by those who plead that the present state of the cause demands it, is to secure the united and systematic action of the friends of the cause in every part of the wide field.

But what will the first brief session of General Conference do toward accomplishing this grand object? What should be done? We do not propose to answer these questions; but in asking them wish to call attention to them, and suggest that they should be well considered, especially by our preachers, before Conference assembles.

We shall all be happy to meet true friends of the cause from the different States, and elsewhere. We shall enjoy the reading of the epistles sent in, as we hope they will be, from those localities which may not be represented by delegates. A free interchange of thought as to the best general course of action would be very agreeable. And should nothing more be accomplished, such a meeting might have a salutary influence on the general good of the cause. But may we not look for something more than this?

As far as the use of means is concerned in securing united, systematic action in the entire body, must not the General Conference be the great regulator? If so, is it not the duty of General Conference to mark out the general course to be pursued by State Conferences? And if it be the pleasure of State Conferences to carry out the decisions of General Conference, unity thus far will be secured.

But in our unorganized condition our preachers have not been properly distributed. Vermont and Michigan have more than their proportion, and five still have their headquarters at Battle Creek, while Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, the Canadas, and Western Territories are almost destitute. All reflecting persons will conclude that there is a wrong in this somewhere. Shall General Conference correct the wrong by making a judicious distribution of preachers throughout the wide field? Does organization reach as far as our preachers? or does it not? When our churches are well organized, with systematic Benevolence in full operation, and they united to some State Conference, does the work stop there? or does it reach our preachers, systematizing their labor, and regulating their support?

If our preachers, like those of several denominations, were left to seek their support from the people where they might labor for a specified length of time, then Conference might not dictate to them their place of labor, or the amount they should receive. No, it would grant them the right to go where they could gain the reputation of well-doing as ministers, and receive all the people might choose to give them. But our preachers do not confine their labors to any one place, or to any specified number of places. They go among the churches where most needed, and then enter new fields without expecting to receive anything from those for whom they labor.

In order that this manner of labor might be sustained, systematic benevolence has been introduced to our people, and it has proved a perfect success. Now our preachers can be well sustained, while they devote their entire energies to pushing forward the work. But for our preachers to hold our people under obligation to support them by a system of liberality, and they locate where they please, and labor where, and as, they please, seems to us extremely absurd. We plead for system. And while ministers call for systematic benevolence, let the people loudly call for systematic labor. Can General Conference take this matter in hand? If not, what use have we for General Conference? Again, should not General Conference control all missionary labor in new fields? If so, would it not control missionary funds, and require, among other officers, a treasurer and board of directors? Every such organization should be as simple as possible, and accomplish its design. Useless machinery of this kind is badly in the way. But that which is worth doing at all, should be done correctly and well. If General Conference is not higher in authority than State Conferences, we see but little use for it. Think of these things, brethren, and be ready to act when assembled in General Conference.