Printed in the Review and Herald, March 19, 1936
As a remedy for serious difficulties facing the cause, Elder James White had proposed that the church be placed in the "position necessary to be able to get church property insured, hold their meetinghouses in a proper manner," also to make it possible for "those persons making their wills, and wishing to do so," to "appropriate a portion to the publishing department."--Review and Herald, Feb. 23, 1860.
While these were commendable ends, yet some of the leading brethren were not prepared to accept such a radical change of policy as was involved in organizing according to law, with the necessity of adopting a name for the church body. And so, during the summer of 1860, the Review became an open forum for the discussion of this question.
The first minister who wrote in response to Elder White's invitation for an expression of individual judgment was J. N. Loughborough. He spoke feelingly of the burdens that Elder White had borne, and of the partial relief afforded him when the church raised money to take "the office and books off of Brother White's hands, and thus raised the means to relieve him of the debts which had been incurred in printing the books then on hand." It was evident, however, he said, "that the work is not yet completed." Matters must be so arranged that "the responsibility of debts, etc., will not rest upon one individual." Therefore he concluded:
"I am in favor of organizing by law, that we may be able to hold and legally protect our church property."--Review and Herald, March 8, 1860.
The majority of writers expressed themselves likewise in favor of taking the steps necessary to function as a legal property-owning church. Yet among the few who hesitated and questioned, there were men of influence. The advent believers had come out from "Babylon" as they understood it, when they had been turned out or had voluntarily withdrawn from the popular churches. Now if they were to become like these churches through organization, would not that involve the adoption of a creed, and the assumption of a name that would place them among the popular churches? These questions were very real to them, and can be understood only in the light of the opposition they had met from most of the popular churches of the day in their work of teaching the Sabbath reformation.
There were some who felt that for the church to claim the protection of the law of the land in holding property, was inconsistent with the teaching that civil and religious interests should be kept separate. The thought was expressed by one correspondent that it would be proper for delegated individuals to hold property for the church, for surely we could "trust one another."
And here again there fell largely to Elder White the responsibility of allaying the fears of some, and of answering their arguments. Logically and convincingly, every objection raised was met. He showed that it was the confusion of language among the Babel builders, not the making of a name, that "lay at the foundation of Babylon." If it is right for an individual to hold property legally, he argued, it could not be wrong for a church to do the same. As for leaving the "matter to the Lord," he said:
"It is perfectly right to leave the sun, moon, and stars with the Lord; also the earth with its revolutions, the ebbing and flowing of the tides; the running of the rivers, the changing seasons, sunshine and rain, heat and cold--we say, 'Let us leave these with the Lord.' But if God in His everlasting word calls on us to act the part of faithful stewards of His goods, we had better attend to these matters in a legal manner--the only way we can handle real estate in this world."--Review and Herald, March 29, 1860.
Repeatedly he called not merely for objections to the plan proposed, but for an alternate plan that would meet the difficulties. As an instance of a real need for safeguarding the property of the church, he pointed out the fact that the Battle Creek meetinghouse was built on a lot owned by S. T. Belden, and its continued use by the church would depend upon his integrity. Moreover, there was no way by which any who were so disposed might at their death leave their property "for the benefit of the benevolent objects of the cause."
Though brethren expressed different views, yet their candid spirit of conscientious regard for the right is evident even in the correspondence upon this moot question. M. E. Cornell confessed his early prejudice against organization, but stated that after a week's study he had changed his mind, and gave his reasons for the change. In the letter giving his position, he said:
"There is danger of our being so overzealous to keep out of Babylon that we shall commit her most noted blunder-- that of sticking a stake and refusing to pull it up and advance. When we cease to unlearn errors, we shall fall like those who have gone before us. We have learned much, and no doubt there is much more for us to learn. ... It is the 'follow-on' and the 'go-through' spirit that will finally land the remnant 'without fault' on the heavenly Mount Zion. My conclusion is that we should give up no Scripture truth, but that our false applications and interpretations of Scripture, and consequent false ideas of order and propriety, should be given up as fast as possible."--Review and Herald, May 29, 1860.
Such an attitude on the part of the leaders in the work, assured final unity of action. Even the one who had been most decided in the expression of his misgivings about organization cheerfully expressed his willingness to "submit to the judgment of the church."
The First Organized Church
While the discussion over organization was still going on through the Review, the first church was legally organized at Parkville, Michigan. The brethren in that place had raised $400 toward a place of worship, and proposed to have its possession legally safeguarded. Therefore, in a meeting-held on May 13, I860, J. N. Loughborough being present, they took "legal steps towards organizing a religious society, that they might hold property in a lawful manner." Trustees were elected, and a certificate was made out and filed, preparatory to recording in the county clerk's office. As no name had been decided on for the body, they adopted tentatively the name, "Parkville Church of Christ's Second Advent."
Farther United Action
The annual gathering of Michigan brethren was held at Battle Creek in the latter part of September, 1860. Evening after the Sabbath, September 29, with Joseph Bates in the chair, the first business meeting was held, and the subject of organization was the first matter to be considered. By request, James White led out in presenting the question, reviewing at length the progress of the movement toward a united effort. His remarks were followed by a free discussion, all of which tended to bring about a better understanding and final unity of action. At length, on Sunday forenoon, it was resolved:
"That this Conference recommend to our individual churches so to organize as to hold their church property or church buildings legally."--Review and Herald, Oct. 16, 1860.
The Selection of a Name
Various suggestions had been made for the denominational name. One correspondent recommended, "Advent Sabbatarian." The one church already organized had called themselves the "Church of Christ's Second Advent." A number had favored the name "Church of God," and in the Review for June 19, 1860, James White had proposed that this name be unanimously adopted "as a Scriptural and appropriate name by which to be known."
At length an action was taken, involving only those present at the Council. It was resolved, "That we call ourselves Seventh-day Adventists." and further, "That we recommend the name we have chosen to the churches generally."--Review and Herald, Oct. 23, 1860.
Organization of the Publishing Association
At this same convocation, and prior to the selection of the name "Seventh-day Adventists," an important action was taken, calling for the organization of the "Advent Review Publishing Association." A committee was chosen and instructed to "apply to the legislature for an act empowering them to hold the office property, and carry on the business of publication."--Review and Herald, Oct. 16, 1860.
Some delays were experienced, owing to the necessity of State legislative action, and it was not until May 3, 1861, that the association was incorporated by law.
A Threatened Division
While the matter of organization and the choice of a name had been seemingly settled by a majority vote, yet some were still fearful that a mistake had been made by that majority. One large church, representative of the sentiment in Ohio, had sent their delegate bearing the letter from "The Church of God at ________," and expressing themselves as being "highly favorable to such organization, and such only, as the Bible authorizes and recognizes." This delegate consistently voted against the adoption of the name, and against its recommendation to other churches. And in the final action, four other ministers had refrained from voting.
A Message From Heaven
And now, as so often in the history of the cause, when men had gone as far as they were able in the investigation of the word of God and in deciding upon the application of its principles, and were yet not in full harmony, a message from heaven was sent, placing the seal of approval upon the steps that had been taken.
On December 23, three months after the Battle Creek Conference, Sister White was shown in vision some matters regarding the state of the cause, and was given words of reproof for the wrongs of a number of individuals. This was written out, and appeared a few weeks later in "Testimony for the Church," Number 6. Among the contents of this 64-page pamphlet, was the opening chapter entitled, "Slackness Reproved," in which occur the following words:
"I saw that the enemy would come in every way possible to dishearten the people of God and perplex and trouble them, and that they should move understandingly, and prepare themselves for the attacks of Satan. Matters pertaining to the church should not be left in an unsettled condition. Steps should be taken to secure church property for the cause of God, that the work may not be retarded in its progress, and that the means which persons wish to dedicate to God's cause may not slip into the enemy's ranks. I saw that God's people should act wisely, and leave nothing undone on their part to place the business of the church in a secure state."--"Testimonies," Vol. I, pp. 210, 211.
For a certain brother who opposed organization, a straightforward message was given, pointing out the "wrong stand" he had taken, "and the distracting influence he exerted." His position against organization was said to have "caused those who fear order to look with suspicion upon the suggestions of those who by the special providence of God move out in the important matters of the church."--Id., p. 211.
Approval of the name that had been adopted was given in clear and positive statements. She said:
"No name which we can take will be appropriate but that which accords with our profession and expresses our faith and marks us a peculiar people. The name Seventh-day Adventist is a standing rebuke to the Protestant world. Here is the line of distinction between the worshipers of God and those who worship the beast and receive his mark. ...
"The name Seventh-day Adventist carries the true features of our faith in front, and will convict the inquiring mind. Like an arrow from the Lord's quiver, it will wound the transgressors of God's law, and will lead to repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus. Christ."--Id., pp. 223, 224.
The principle involved in the plan adopted for "systematic benevolence" was also endorsed in this same testimony in the following language:
"I was pointed back to the children of Israel anciently. God required of them all, both poor and rich, a sacrifice according as He had prospered them."--Id., p. 220.
"This tithing system, I saw, would develop character and manifest the true state of the heart."--Id., p. 237.
Moreover, the passages relating to "tithes and offerings," found in Malachi 3:8-ll, were quoted, with the comment:
"The prophecy has a special application to the last days, and teaches God's people their duty to bring a proportion of. their substance as a free-will offering to the Lord."--Id., pp. 222, 223.
The above instruction, while commending the steps that had been taken in the establishment of systematic benevolence for the support of the cause, was nevertheless in advance of the plan as at first adopted, for it recognized the tithing system as practiced in ancient Israel. A few years later the tithing system as we know it today was generally adopted after the Bible evidences for the plan had been studied.
The Response
And so here again through the gift of prophecy the cause was saved from an unhappy division. The brethren who had in all good conscience taken the wrong side of the question regarding organization, made acknowledgment of their error, and unity was maintained.
And now,with plans laid for the organization of local churches, and for representatives from these churches to meet annually for counsel; with provision for the support of the ministry through the plan of systematic benevolence; with the publishing work legally organized; with a fitting name adopted; and with the approval of Heaven upon all these steps, there yet remained the for- mal organization of State conferences, and of a General Conference, in order to complete the movement that had so far been proceeding slowly, but well. [1]
Note:
1. For further counsel relative to organization, written during the period of this article, see "Testimonies for the Church, "Vol. 1, pp. 24-27.