The movement was growing. As it spread to the West, families of means accepted the message. For some it was difficult to grasp their responsibility to give financial support to the cause they loved. During the years 1857 and 1858 the situation became desperate. There was no church organization; there was no church treasury. Those who felt called to enter the ministry faced great sacrifices, for they were dependent upon gifts placed in their hands as they moved from place to place. Dedication and sacrifice were called for.
John Loughborough reported concerning financial support for four months of service while holding tent meetings in Illinois, that he had received his board, lodging, and traveling expenses and about $15 in money. This did not leave him much to take home to his wife, Mary.
"For the whole winter of 1857-1858," he said, "I received three ten-pound [4-kilogram] cakes of maple sugar, ten bushels [40 pecks] of wheat, five bushels [20 pecks] of apples, five bushels [20 pecks] of potatoes, one ham, one half of a small hog, one peck [nine liters] of beans, and four dollars in cash. This with the small profit from our boarders brought me through the winter in better condition than other of our ministers" (Pacific Union Recorder, October 6, 1910).
James and Ellen White, too, were struggling. While some of the ministers had to drop out from time to time and work with their hands to support their families, James White found as he traveled among the believers that there were those in need of Bibles and other books. He bought supplies and carried some with him, or sent them from Battle Creek. These he sold at a profit.
Things had reached a state where a permanent plan had to be found to provide financial resources for the growing church. In these circumstances Ellen White said to her husband, "The Lord has shown me that if you will call the ministers together, and have J. N. Andrews come down from Waukon, and hold a Bible class, you will find that in the Scriptures there is a complete plan to sustaining ... the work of the ministry" (Ibid.).
James White did call for Andrews to come to Battle Creek for such a study, which was reported by J. N. Loughborough. Several workers, including J. N. Andrews, met for two days in Battle Creek to study a Bible-based system of finance for the emerging church. The plan that was developed was presented to the Battle Creek church in a business meeting the following Sunday night, January 16, 1859. The aim was to induce all to sustain the cause of present truth and at the same time relieve some who had given beyond their real ability.
"Brethren Andrews, Frisbie, and White were chosen to prepare an address on Systematic Benevolence, founded on the declarations of Scripture (The Review and Herald, February 3, 1859). Two weeks later, January 29, after the hours of the Sabbath were passed, the church came together to hear the reading of the address. The report was adopted by a unanimous vote.
This plan, developed by leading men in the church, became known from the outset as "Systematic Benevolence." Almost from the first the close relation of Systematic Benevolence to the tithe was observed. In early 1861 James White, in a little-known and short-lived printed sheet, referred to the Systematic Benevolence as the tithe.
We propose that the friends give a tithe, or a tenth of their income, estimating their income at 10 percent of what they possess (The Good Samaritan, January, 1861).
Next come the personal donations. Let the young men who have no taxable property come up nobly here, also the young women (The Review and Herald, April 9, 1861).
Systematic Benevolence was early endorsed by Ellen White, and she linked it with the tithe. At the outset there was no separation of tithes and offerings. The demand for funds was mainly for the support of the ministers and the evangelistic outreach.
As the work of the church broadened, developments called for a separation of funds into two groups, "tithes" and "offerings." Also, the precise use of the tithe, sacred to the support of the ministry of the church, was repeatedly brought to the attention of the leaders and members.
The Battle Creek Conference
Because James White was eager to have the largest possible representation present for the consideration of plans for the financial support of the growing church, he placed several notices in the Review to believers "east, west, north, and south" to attend a conference at Battle Creek, Friday, June 3, to Monday, June 6, 1859. He was especially eager for a good attendance, for it was his plan to promote Systematic Benevolence.
The people were told to make provision for their own entertainment. "It will be impossible," he wrote, "to supply all with beds, or all their horses with stable room. Our sleeping rooms will be given up to females to be made as comfortable as possible, in camp meeting style. The brethren will have the next-best chance in our barns, in the tent, or on unoccupied floors in our houses. Blankets and buffalo robes will be in good demand" (Ibid., April 21, 1859).
James White called for a business session to convene immediately after the Sabbath. Joseph Bates chaired the meeting. The address from the Battle Creek church, prepared in January setting forth the broad plans for Systematic Benevolence, was read and freely discussed. Waggoner declared he had seen the plan in operation, and "it worked well." Andrews said he heartily approved the plan. Steward compared it to taxes that people pay, even when they are increased. Cornell declared that "nothing could be brought against the position taken." Byington remarked that God is a God of order, and he thought it was a good plan. Rhodes had only one objection: "The ... amount called for by the system was too small."
The record of the meeting stated: "Moved by Brother Loughborough that the address be adopted by the conference. Unanimously carried" (Ibid., June 9, 1859). This marked another step toward organization by the emerging church.
Ellen White was ill and discouraged and too feeble to attend this meeting. She did go to the tent meeting the following Sunday, but was too miserable to enjoy it. She soon wrote of the experience in introducing the pamphlet Testimony No. 5. Here she mentioned that her disease of the heart had a tendency "to depress" her spirits and "destroy" her "faith and courage." Often as she retired at night she felt that her life might be cut short at any moment. She reported that it was at this point that she fainted at midnight on this occasion, presumably Sunday, June 4.
Brethren Andrews and Loughborough were sent for, and offered earnest petitions to God in her behalf. She was taken off in vision. The heavy weight and depression were lifted from her heart and she was shown a number of things to present to the church (Testimonies for the Church, 1:185).
First, she was instructed in regard to her personal experience. She saw "that Satan had tried to drive me into discouragement and despair, and to make me desire death rather than life" (Ibid.).
She also saw that the Laodicean message applied at the present time, and "the message would not accomplish its work in a few short months. It is designed to arouse the people of God, to ... be fitted for the loud cry of the third angel" (Ibid., 1:186).
Then the vision turned to the topic the conference had been considering that very evening. Of this she wrote:
The plan of systematic benevolence is pleasing to God. I was pointed back to the days of the apostles, and saw that God laid the plan by the descent of His Holy Spirit, and that by the gift of prophecy He counseled His people in regard to a system of benevolence. All were to share in this work (Ibid., 1:190).
The records indicate that this vision marked a turning of the tide in Ellen White's health.
The Autumn Trip East
On Wednesday, August 17, 1859, the Whites left by train for a three-month tour through the Eastern states. Her diary carries day-by-day accounts of conferences and meetings held, of old friends met, of comforting the bereaved, of preaching to large audiences, and, where presented, of the adoption of Systematic Benevolence. They were back home Monday, November 21.
James White summarized the trip east this way:
The first ten weeks of our journey, till Brother Loughborough joined us, we traveled two thousand miles (3,200 kilometers), preached fifty times, and transacted business, from the sale of a penny tract up to a much larger sum, to the amount of $1,000. We returned with better health and courage to labor in the cause of truth than we had had for the past ten years (The Review and Herald, December 6, 1859).
Guiding Toward Organization the Vital Need for Church Organization
As the number of believers increased, it became clear that there was a pressing need for some guidance and controls. Except for the messages that came from God through the visions given to Ellen White, there was no authoritative voice, no voice of an organization, to endorse doctrinal holdings or to certify to the integrity and the qualifications of those who chose to represent themselves as ministers to the Sabbathkeeping remnant. Some who felt called gave no real evidence of such a call. Some organization was needed.
One matter that required agreement was the time to begin the Sabbath. Joseph Bates was considered the father of the Sabbath truth. As captain of his own vessels, he had sailed far and wide and was acquainted with the matter of time-keeping in various parts of the world. It was his conclusion that time as kept at the equator, with sunset uniformly at 6:00 p.m., was the proper guide to Sabbathkeeping, regardless of season of the year or location. The Scriptures called for evening to mark the beginning of the new day, and the words "from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath" (Leviticus 23:32) were cited in support of this view. The April 21, 1851, issue of the Review carried a three-column article by Joseph Bates in support of the 6:00 time.
In the state of Maine in 1847-1848 some took the position that the Sabbath commenced at sunrise, quoting as support, Matthew 28:1: "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" (see The Review and Herald, February 25, 1868). A vision given to Ellen White checked this error in principle, for the angel repeated the words of the scripture "From even unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath."
There were a few who observed the Sabbath from sundown to sundown (JW to "My Dear Brother," July 2, 1848; see also Ibid., February 25, 1868), but the majority stood with Bates, as did James and Ellen White. In June 1854 James White requested D. P. Hall in Wisconsin to study the matter and come up with an answer (Ibid., December 4, 1855).
When this request failed to yield fruit, he asked John Andrews to take his Bible and bring evidence to settle the question. Andrews prepared a paper on the matter. As he passed through Battle Creek with his parents in November on his way to Iowa, he left this in the hands of James White. The reading of this paper became the Sabbath morning Bible study at the conference in Battle Creek. From nine texts in the Old Testament and two from the New, Andrews demonstrated that "even" and "evening" of the Sabbath were identical with sunset (Ibid.).
As the paper was read that Sabbath morning, it could be seen that while the 6:00 time advocated by Bates was in principle not incorrect--for it called for beginning the Sabbath in the evening--in detail there was an error. Now with the position of sunset time so amply supported by Scripture evidence, all the congregations, which included the church's leaders, readily accepted the light and were prepared to shift their practice. All, that is, but two--Joseph Bates and Ellen White.
Bates's position had been generally accepted and defended. He was the venerable apostle of the Sabbath truth. He was unready to accept what had been presented by the youthful John Andrews, and he would stand in defense of his position. The vision given to Ellen White in 1848, correcting the sunrise time and confirming "evening time," had nothing to say about the 6:00 time being in error.
Ellen White reasoned that the 6:00 time had been a matter of practice for nearly a decade. The Sabbath so kept had been a great blessing to her, and the angel had said nothing about its being in error. Must a change be made now? Thus matters stood through the rest of the Sabbath and through Sunday as the members met in conference, but this was a rather touchy point of division that was bound to widen as time went on. Then the God of heaven stepped in.
Of what took place Ellen White wrote:
November 20, 1855, while in prayer, the Spirit of the Lord came suddenly and powerfully upon me, and I was taken off in vision (Testimonies for the Church, 1:113).
Her attention was called to many points, among them the time to commence the Sabbath. She discussed the matter with the angel. This conversation was very enlightening:
I saw that it is even so: "From even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath." Said the angel: "Take the Word of God, read it, understand, and ye cannot err. Read carefully, and ye shall find what even is and when it is."
I asked the angel if the frown of God had been upon His people for commencing the Sabbath as they had. I was directed back to the first rise of the Sabbath, and followed the people of God up to this time, but did not see that the Lord was displeased, or frowned upon them.
I inquired why it had been thus, that at this late day we must change the time of commencing the Sabbath. Said the angel: "Ye shall understand, but not yet, not yet." Said the angel: "If light come, and that light is set aside or rejected, then comes condemnation and the frown of God; but before the light comes, there is no sin, for there is no light for them to reject."
I saw that it was in the minds of some that the Lord had shown that the Sabbath commenced at six o'clock, when I had only seen that it commenced at "even," and it was inferred that even was at six.
I saw that the servants of God must draw together, press together (Ibid., 1:116).
And they did. The vision set Ellen White and Joseph Bates straight, and they accepted the vision wholeheartedly. The matter of the time to begin the Sabbath was settled--settled on the basis of Bible study, confirmed by vision.
Initial Steps Toward Church Organization
Late in 1853 Ellen White prepared a comprehensive article on organization based largely on a vision given in September 1852. In it she pointed out:
The Lord has shown me that gospel order has been too much neglected and feared. That formality should be shunned; but in so doing, order should not be neglected. There is order in heaven. There was order in the church when Christ was upon the earth; and after His departure, order was strictly observed among His apostles. And now in these last days, while God is bringing His children into the unity of faith, there is more real need of order than ever before (Supplement to Christian Experience and Views, p. 15 [see also Early Writings, 97]).
In view of the great importance of this testimony in relation to the emerging church, let us consider some of the high points:
1. Men are hurried into the field who lack wisdom and judgment (Ibid., 97).
2. Men whose lives are not holy and who are unqualified to teach the present truth enter the field without being acknowledged by the church or the brethren generally, and confusion and disunion are the result (Ibid.).
3. Some have a theory of the truth, and can present the argument, but lack spirituality, judgment, and experience; they fail in many things which it is very necessary for them to understand before they can teach the truth (Ibid., 98).
4. Others have not the argument, but ... are pressed into the field to engage in a work for which God has not qualified them (Ibid.).
5. The church should feel their responsibility and should look carefully and attentively at the lives, qualifications, and general course of those who profess to be teachers (Ibid., 100).
6. It is the duty of the church to act and let it be known that these persons [those who are not called of God, but profess to be teachers] are not acknowledged as teachers by the church (Ibid.).
7. I saw that this door at which the enemy comes in to perplex and trouble the flock can be shut. I inquired of the angel how it could be closed. He said, "The church must flee to God's Word and become established upon gospel order, which has been overlooked and neglected" (Ibid.).
James White Joins In Calling For Gospel Order
Through December James White joined Ellen White's voice through four Review editorials. Under the same title, "Gospel Order," he came to grips with the matter in a practical way. In the first editorial he pointed out the confusion that exists when gospel order is overlooked. The result is "perfect Babylon." Was having a creed the answer? "What is the real condition of the churches with all their creeds to aid them?"
He then presented his basic position:
We go for order and strict discipline in the church of Christ. And while we reject all human creeds, or platforms, which have failed to effect the order set forth in the gospel, we take the Bible, the perfect rule of faith and practice, given by inspiration of God. This shall be our platform on which to stand, our creed and discipline (The Review and Herald, December 13, 1853).
In the second editorial James White made it clear that he saw a large task ahead in arriving at and preserving "gospel order in the church," but he declared that it "must be and will be accomplished."
In the third editorial he dealt with the "calling, qualifications, and the duties of a gospel minister." He asserted that "the united action of the church relative to those who take the watchcare of the flock would have a powerful influence to unite the church in love" (Ibid., December 20, 1853).
The fourth editorial brought out the responsibilities of the individual church members in giving support in both prayers and finances.
The series closed with the words of the apostle Paul in Romans 12:1-18, setting forth God's ideal for His people. Ellen and James White had sown the seed--it would take time to mature. What was written tended to restrain a tendency to disunion in the ranks of the believers. Another factor, something not enjoyed by the other churches, was the guiding and restraining influence of the visions, which the believers accepted as having authority. The interplay of Bible instruction and the Spirit of Prophecy messages come into full view as church organization was consummated a few years later.
While Ellen White had written and published at some length on the need of order in managing the work of the church (see Early Writings, 97-104), and while James White had kept his need before the believers in addresses and Review articles, the church was slow to move. What had been presented in general terms was well received, but when it came to translating this into something constructive there was resistance and opposition. James White's brief articles in February aroused not a few from complacency, and now a great deal was being said.
J. N. Loughborough, working with White in Michigan, was the first to respond. His words were in the affirmative, but on the defensive:
Says one, if you organize so as to hold property by law, you will be a part of Babylon. No; I understand there is quite a difference between our being in a position that we can protect our property by law and using the law to protect and enforce our religious views. If it is wrong to protect church property, why is it not wrong for individuals to hold any property legally? (The Review and Herald, March 8, 1860).
Need For Organization For Publishing Interests
James White had closed his statement in the Review, laying before the church the matter of the need for organization of the publishing interests with the words "If any object to our suggestions, will they please write out a plan on which we as a people can act?" (Ibid., February 23, 1860). The first minister in the field to respond was R. F. Cottrell, a stalwart corresponding editor of the Review. His immediate reaction was decidedly negative:
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 this 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 us a name," since that lies at the foundation of Babylon. I do not think God would approve of it (Ibid., March 22, 1860).
Cottrell was experienced and influential; his message, published in James White's absence, set the pace for a long-drawn-out battle. The matter seesawed back and forth through the next six months, with some reference to it in most issues of the Review. Then came the call for a general conference at Battle Creek opening Friday, September 28, to consider safeguarding the work through some type of organization. Because of the importance of the conference, its business proceedings were reported in great detail in the issues of the Review and Herald for October 9, 16, and 23. The business meetings began September 29 immediately after the Sabbath, with Joseph Bates serving as chairman. Having in mind the debate that had been running in the Review, those attending the conference moved immediately into a lengthy discussion. It was clear that most looked negatively on any steps toward organization. Meetings continued through the evening after the Sabbath and Sunday morning and afternoon, ending finally with the adoption of the following:
We recommend to the conference the organization of a publishing association that may legally hold the Review office (Ibid., October 16, 1860).
With relief James White stood and said, "This is just what I have been pleading for, for the last six months" (Ibid., October 23, 1860). On Monday at sunrise the conference met to adopt a constitution built upon this action. First, White made some remarks, "expressing his gratitude for the candor and good feeling and unity and regard for the principles of right, manifested by those present" (Ibid.). The first of the 10 articles adopted that Monday morning read:
This Association shall be denominated The Advent Review Publishing Association, the object of which shall be the publication of periodicals, books, and tracts, calculated to convey instruction on Bible truth, especially the fulfillment of prophecy, the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus (Ibid.).
Adopting A Denominational Name
The conference, having reached a consensus on the need for organizing the publishing association, now faced a further step. In order to own property legally a name needed to be chosen for the groups of Sabbathkeeping Adventists scattered widely in New England and the Midwest.
Cautiously the conference moved into this highly sensitive area. Brother Poole feared that to adopt a general name would hurt them as a people. J. B. Frisbie was opposed to a sectarian name but saw the need for some uniformity of the terms by which the body of Sabbathkeepers would be known. Moses Hull thought that the churches in various places might be known as "the church worshiping on the seventh day in such and such places." James White stated that he did not see how they could get along without some name, and they could not hold property without a name. The law was specific on that point. He could not see that this would be going into Babylon. M. E. Cornell was articulate in expressing his feelings:
The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus is a distinguishing feature between us and the other denominations.... There is confusion in the names already chosen; and if something is not done here, churches will go on choosing different names still. A general name will bring us into unity and not confusion (Ibid.).
The discussion continued in earnest terms through the morning hours till 11:00, when a recess seemed in order. The minutes of the discussions after lunch read:
The question again [was] brought before the meeting, "Shall we adopt some name?" Some who had previously been averse to such a step here signified their change of opinion, and their readiness to cooperate with their brethren in this course (Ibid.).
Brother Sperry was willing to lay his prejudice on the altar, believing that God would give wisdom. Stephen Belden, employed in the Review office, expressed his feeling that going without a name would be like publishing books without titles, or sending out a paper without a heading.
James White then took the floor and apologized for some of the brethren who seemed to be afraid of a name. The Review reported:
He [James] had been in the same position once. In times past when we were comparatively few, he did not see the necessity of any such steps. But now large bodies of intelligent brethren are being raised up, and without some regulation of this kind will be thrown into confusion.
He then gave a review of the past, mentioning the opposition which had been manifested by some all the way along, first against publishing a paper, then against issuing pamphlets, then against having an office,
then against the sale of publications, then against church order, then against having a power press. It had been hard to bring the minds of some of the brethren to the necessity of these things; but they had all been essential to the prosperity of the cause (Ibid.).
The motion to adopt a name was finally put before the delegates, and it carried. The record states, "None dissented, though a few declined to vote." Turning again to the minutes of this 1860 conference, we find the story of the outcome, which gave birth to the name by which the Sabbathkeeping Adventists would be known.
Seventh-Day Adventists The Name Chosen
Having voted to adopt a name, the discussion now turned on what that name should be. The name Church of God, was proposed and zealously advocated by some. It was objected that the name was already in use by some denominations, and on this account, was indefinite, besides having to the world an appearance of presumption. Brother White remarked that the name taken should be one which would be the least objectionable to the world at large.
The name Seventh-day Adventists was proposed as a simple name and one expressive of our faith and position. After some further remarks, Brother Hewitt offered the following resolution:
Resolved, That we take the name of Seventh-day Adventists (Ibid.).
This resolution was discussed freely, and the wording was adjusted to "That we call ourselves Seventh-day Adventists." It was finally acted upon (Ibid.).
Even so, T. J. Butler, of Ohio, dissented, and Elders Lawrence, Sperry, Andrews, and Ingraham refrained from voting. Now the Sabbathkeeping Adventists had a name, a name that Ellen White was shown carried Heaven's approval. It had been a momentous conference, clearly influenced by the Spirit of God.
The next step to be taken was the organization of the publishing work. On May 3, 1861, the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association was incorporated in harmony with laws newly formulated by the Michigan legislature, and on May 23, in Battle Creek, bylaws governing the operation of the corporation was adopted. Officers for the association were chosen as follows:
President, James White
Vice President, G. W. Amadon
Secretary, E. S. Walker
Treasurer, Uriah Smith
Auditor, J. N. Loughborough
James White was elected editor of the Review and Herald, and G. W. Amadon, editor of the Youth's Instructor (Ibid., May 28, 1861).
Winning The Struggle For Church Organization
With others sharing the responsibilities of the publishing work in Battle Creek, James and Ellen were more free to travel into the field and visit the churches.
But while there was unanimity at the conference in Battle Creek, this was not true in the field generally.
With repairs being made on their home, with the laying of plans for the new publishing house, with planning for a trip east to secure moral support for organization and for funds badly needed by the publishing association, James White, as reported by Ellen to Mary Loughborough, was "too busy to know whether he is sick or well" (Letter 6, 1861). He was yet to discover the extent of the negative feelings in the field, particularly in New York State and Ohio.
Meeting Opposition
James and Ellen White started on their eastern tour Tuesday, July 23, 1861. They spent Tuesday night with friends in Jackson, Michigan, and the next morning were on their way to Eagle Harbor, New York, where Moses Hull was leading out in tent meetings. A phrase in Hull's report of the meetings gives a hint of the erosion, in certain areas, of confidence in church leaders. He wrote: "Sister White's testimonies were very pointed, and seemed to remove prejudice which existed against her and her visions" (The Review and Herald, September 3, 1861). As resistance to organization deepened, and criticism of James White for his attempts to lead the church into organization proliferated, Ellen White and the visions came under attack, first covertly and then openly. Church order and spiritual gifts were closely linked together, as was seen as the eastern tour progressed.
Vision At Roosevelt, New York
From Eagle Harbor the Whites made their way to Rochester and then to Roosevelt, New York. A conference was to be held in the house of worship there over the weekend of August 3 and 4. This was a difficult meeting. White reported that on Sabbath afternoon light began to break through, especially in a season of special prayer "for the afflicted and desponding among us, and for the return of the Holy Spirit to us as a people." He reported:
We had been assembled seven hours without taking food, and the interest of the occasion was such that no one appeared to be faint or weary.
God heard the united prayers of His afflicted people, and His Spirit came down upon them. Mrs. White shared largely in this blessed refreshing, and was soon in vision, in which she had messages of comfort for the desponding and afflicted, and of correction for the wayward and erring (Ibid., August 20, 1861).
In the vision she was shown, among other things, "in regard to church order, and the struggle of our nation, and its effect upon the cause" (Ibid., August 27, 1861). As they moved through the state and saw what was happening, James White was "stung with the thought that the balance of influence is either against, or silent upon, the subject of organization" (Ibid., September 3, 1861). He wrote:
We seem to be wading through the influence of a stupid uncertainty upon the subject of organization. This is as might be expected from the circumstances connected with the introduction of the subject among us. Soon after we merely hinted at it about eighteen months since, an article appeared in the Review from one of the corresponding editors well calculated to arouse the fears of many that Brother White was in favor of something dreadful....
The brethren in Pennsylvania voted down organization, and the cause in Ohio has been dreadfully shaken. It has suffered everywhere. If such ministers of experience as Brethren Ingraham, Andrews, and Wheeler could have spoken on the subject decidedly and in season, much might have been saved that has probably gone to ruin. There is everywhere someone to hold back. They have no valid reasons for so doing; still they hold back (Ibid., August 27, 1861).
White then referred to the conference in Roosevelt. After a two-hour discussion on organization at which objections were removed, he called for a standing vote favoring organization. Pioneer worker Frederick Wheeler kept his seat. James White was devastated. He wrote, "A dreadful feeling of discouragement came over us that we have not been able to shake off," and he asked, "What can we expect of the people when the ministers stand thus?"
As James White bemoaned the situation, he observed that "instead of our being a united people, growing stronger, we are in many places but little better than broken fragments, still scattering and growing weaker" (Ibid.).
This situation had been most obvious to James and Ellen and other leaders as they traveled widely and visited individual churches. They saw how important it was for individual churches to agree on such matters as qualifications of leaders, accepting new members, and teaching the beliefs.
Since the first steps had been taken in Battle Creek, in providing for the publishing work and having decided on a name, the members in Battle Creek were first to take the next step.
The Battle Creek Church Sets The Pace In Organizing
Though in August and September several companies of believers entered into some form of organization, it was left to the Battle Creek church to lead out again in well-defined steps in this direction. The annual meeting of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association was called for Friday, October
4. This would bring together quite a group of Michigan ministers and laymen.
J. N. Loughborough, E. S. Walker, and George Amadon saw this as an opportunity to further the interests of church order, carrying it to a third step, the organizing of local churches. In connection with the constituency meeting, they suggested meetings over the weekend at which attention could be given to "a more perfect organization of the church" (Ibid., September 24, 1861).
So after the Sabbath, October 5, a meeting was held, with Joseph Bates serving as chairman and Uriah Smith as secretary.
The first business presented was the organization of churches.
Loughborough moved "that we consider the proper manner of organizing churches."
James White seconded it, and it was carried.
White then presented the following resolution:
Resolved, That this conference recommend the following church covenant: We, the undersigned, hereby associate ourselves together as a church, taking the name Seventh-day Adventists, covenanting to keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus Christ (Ibid., October 8, 1861).
It was seconded by Moses Hull, and adopted. But the vote was not full, and White stated that he hoped that a matter of such importance would not be passed without some discussion. On this suggestion, Loughborough, by a motion, opened the way for a reconsideration of the matter. This led to the question whether White's proposal was not a creed--and a creed they would not tolerate. Hull felt that it was not a creed or articles of faith, but merely a pledge to do one thing: "Keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." James White then led into a discussion of the involvements in the light of the fears sustained by some.
James said, in part: "I would like to hear remarks on this point. It will certainly be doing like those around us; and certain individuals will say that we are following Babylon; and this may be an objection in their minds" (Ibid.).
Loughborough suggested that if this were true, they would be patterning after the other churches by building meetinghouses. "We call the churches Babylon not because they covenant together to obey God," but for other reasons.
Cornell could not see that adopting such a covenant was "patterning after the churches."
Then James made a comprehensive and significant statement on the matter.
I wish to say a word now in favor of the resolution. I prefer that the brethren should be uniform in this thing. This would tend to unity in the church. Let us set a right example here and let it go out from this meeting.... In Ephesians 4:11-13, we read, "And He gave some apostles; and some, prophets," et cetera. Here we have the gifts of the church presented. Now I take the ground that creeds stand in a direct opposition to the gifts. Let us suppose a case: We get up a creed, stating just what we shall believe on this point and the other, and just what we shall do in reference to this thing and that, and say that we will believe the gifts, too.
But suppose the Lord, through the gifts, should give us some new light that did not harmonize with our creed; then, if we remain true to the gifts, it knocks our creed all over at once. Making a creed is setting the stakes, and barring up the way to all future advancement. God put the gifts into the church for a good and great object; but men who have got up their churches have shut up the way or have marked out a course for the Almighty. They say virtually that the Lord must not do anything further than what has been marked out in the creed.
A creed and the gifts thus stand in direct opposition to each other. Now what is our position as a people? The Bible is our creed. We reject everything in the form of a human creed. We take the Bible and the gifts of the Spirit; embracing the faith that thus the Lord will teach us from time to time. And in this we take a position against the formation of a creed. We are not taking one step, in what we are doing, toward becoming Babylon (Ibid.; italics supplied).
Some discussion followed about statements in writing and covenants. Then the far-reaching action was taken--that of adopting the wording proposed. Before the meeting ended they adopted unanimously the covenant by which members would join the church:
We, the undersigned, hereby associate ourselves together as a church, taking the name Seventh-day Adventists, covenanting to keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus Christ (Ibid.).
Another important step in church organization had been taken. The matter of procedure in organizing churches was referred to the ministers present who were charged with holding a "Bible class" on the subject and were to write an address to the brethren, to be published in the Review.
The Formation Of The Michigan Conference
James White then suggested another proposition:
Resolved, That we recommend to the churches in the State of Michigan to unite in one conference with the name of the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
The resolution was quickly adopted. Then the ministers and delegates from the churches were declared members of the Michigan Conference. Appropriate officers and a conference committee were elected. The chairman, Joseph Bates, and the clerk, Uriah Smith, were voted in as the officers for the current year, and the time for the first session was set for October 5 to 8, 1862. There was one more important question, and that was "ministers' papers." Here is the action:
Resolved, That our ministers' papers consist of a certificate of ordination, also credentials to be signed by the chairman and clerk of the conference, which credentials shall be renewed annually (Ibid.).
A significant milestone in the organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church had now been put in place. The foundations were laid with Michigan as an example of what might be accomplished. The responsibility for the organization of local churches and state conferences now passed to the believers in other states.
The conference over, James White reported through the Review and Herald:
A calm, sweet, melting spirit pervaded this meeting, making it the best of the kind we ever witnessed. We heard many brethren remark in regard to the conference that it was the best ever held at Battle Creek....
The unity existing among the brethren at this conference, the eagerness to take a decided position upon organization, and the general readiness to sustain the publishing association have greatly encouraged us.... We certainly made rapid progress during the three days of our conference (Ibid.).
Other States Organize
When the Review that reported the meeting of the Michigan Conference came to the hands of J. N. Andrews, who was working in Minnesota, he took the matter of organization to a conference held there. Believers and workers adopted a resolution patterned after the example of Michigan.
Soon Ohio followed, through the efforts of M. E. Cornell, who had gone there to meet appointments for James and Ellen White, who were exhausted.
The stage had been set, and now the believers in most states moved rather promptly into full organization.
The October 29 Review and Herald expressed James White's concern over the peril of inexperienced persons attempting to lead out in organizing local churches. He closed his editorial with these words:
The question has been Shall we organize? That question being answered in the affirmative, the question now is How shall we organize? Beware, brethren, of moving hastily in this matter. By hard tugging, our experienced ministers may be induced to take hold of this work, and not leave it for novices in the faith to make still greater confusion by meddling with the organization of churches (The Review and Herald, October 29, 1861).
This was followed by an in-depth article from Loughborough titled "Church Discipline." He wrote at length of the relation of members to church officers, of the problems of dealing with those who had never been under discipline, of some who were inclined to rebel against the Spirit of Prophecy counsels, and of receiving and propagating rumors and accusations.
Confessions Of Negative Attitudes
Through all of this the Review carried statements from lay members and ministers confessing their wrong attitudes about both organization and the Spirit of Prophecy. Frederick Wheeler's "Confession," published in the Review of December 3, was typical. It was heartfelt and extended, and said in part:
I have been slow ... to engage in the work of organization. I regret this, and intend for the future to be more diligent, believing it will accomplish a work in bringing the church on higher and holier ground.
I humbly ask forgiveness of God and all my brethren, and ask an interest in their prayers (Ibid., December 3, 1861).
A confession was also made by J. N. Andrews, who, writing from Waukon, Iowa, on November 28, 1861, confessed his negative attitude and influence concerning "the testimony of the Spirit of God, given through vision to Sister White." He referred to his turning around, stating that "the present work of organization meets my hearty approval" (Ibid., December 17, 1861).
There was one more step to be taken in church organization, and that was the binding of the state conferences together in the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
The Call For A General Conference
The April 7, 1863, issue of the Review carried the call for a meeting of the General Conference, at which it was hoped that the state conferences could be bound together in a unified organization across the land. The delegates were called to meet on Wednesday, May 20. The notice stated:
The several conference committees in the different states are requested to send delegates, or letters at their discretion. The brethren in those localities where there is no state conference can also be represented in the conference by delegates or letters (Ibid., April 7, 1863).
On Wednesday afternoon, May 20, twenty ministers and laymen assembled in Battle Creek to present their credentials. The conference moved into its work in organizing the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
The conference elected John Byington as president; Uriah Smith, secretary; and E. S. Walker, treasurer. James White was first unanimously elected to the presidency, but he thought it best to let another carry that responsibility. Byington would be joined by J. N. Andrews and G. W. Amadon, making an executive committee of three. The main thrust of the conference related to organization in both the state conferences and the General Conference.
This step in organization brought the church into a unified denominational structure in time to meet the emergencies of the military draft, and prepared to make advance steps as the health message came, through vision, two weeks after the session.