Andrews University Seminary Student Journal Andrews University Seminary Student Journal
Volume 4
Number 1
Spring–Fall 2018
Article 6
5-11-2020
A REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE UNION A REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE UNION
CONFERENCE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE IN THE SEVENTH-CONFERENCE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE IN THE SEVENTH-
DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH AND INTER-STRUCTURAL DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH AND INTER-STRUCTURAL
ACCOUNTABILITY ACCOUNTABILITY
Eric Louw
Andrews University
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/aussj
Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, History of Religion
Commons, Labor History Commons, and the Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Louw, Eric (2020) "A REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE UNION CONFERENCE
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE IN THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH AND INTER-STRUCTURAL
ACCOUNTABILITY,"
Andrews University Seminary Student Journal
: Vol. 4 : No. 1 , Article 6.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/aussj/vol4/iss1/6
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Andrews University Seminary Student Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons
@ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected].
57
Andrews University Seminary Student Journal, Vol. 4, Nos. 1–2, 57–72.
Copyright © 2018 Eric A. Louw
A REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE UNION
CONFERENCE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE IN
THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH AND
INTER-STRUCTURAL ACCOUNTABILITY
ERIC A. LOUW
MDiv Student with an Emphasis in Systematic Theology
Abstract
Over the last few years, a debate regarding the inter-structural relationship of each
level of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has grown to the point where it can be
polarizing, regardless of which side of the debate one is on. This tension has likely
come about, at least in part, as a response to the ongoing gender role debate, which
has given rise to the emergence of an “us vs. them” mentality between those who
agree and disagree with the decisions of the General Conference Sessions and its
Executive Committee. This paper looks at some of the historical data related to the
1901 reorganization in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This may help alleviate
some of this “us vs. them” tension by familiarizing each side with some of the
lesser-known historical details so that continued dialogue includes a more
complete, common understanding. It evaluates the historical roots from which the
Seventh-day Adventist Church developed union conferences, why union
conferences were needed, and how they related to the General Conference shortly
after their formation. A few discoveries are made: (1) The Seventh-day Adventist
Church was a pioneer in the way that union conferences were organized to address
the needs of local fields; (2) the reorganization was necessary in order to reach the
world more effectively by minimizing the obstacles caused by the limitations and
abuse of the centralized decision-making of a few leaders; (3) there appears to have
been clear intention that union conferences would remain accountable to the
General Conference on matters of policy; and (4) union conference autonomy was
built on a foundation of bilateral trust, which was necessary to press forward in the
mission of the church. How these discoveries specifically apply to more recent
debates are left to the discretion of the reader, though pertinent questions for
further evaluation and study are suggested.
Keywords: structure, Seventh-day Adventists, church, authority, union, General
Conference, leadership, accountability, Adventist, reorganization.
Introduction
One of the biggest shifts in the organizational structure of the Seventh-day
Adventist (SDA) Church came with the introduction of union conferences in the
58 SEMINARY STUDENT JOURNAL 4 (SPRING AND FALL 2018)
early 1900s. This paper looks at where the ideas for their implementation in the
SDA Church emerged from, why they were needed, and what their inter-structural
relationship was to the General Conference (GC) in terms of administration and
accountability. These questions are important because the way people understand
the answers to them in history will inform their perspective on how each level of
organization relates to one another today. The need for understanding inter-
structural relationships arises out of more recent debates that have resulted from
the question of ordaining women in the SDA Church.
1
If there is a sufficient
degree of inter-structural independence administratively and union conferences
are primarily accountable to their local constituencies on matters of policy, then it
follows that they would have enough autonomy to make decisions that might
diverge from other levels of the SDA organization without recourse. If, on the
other hand, the union conferences are inter-structurally accountable to other
levels of the SDA church structure, then to diverge in practice on certain matters
of policy would likewise be significant. While the purpose of this paper is not to
suggest what should or should not be, this overview of some of the historical data
can help add valuable insight into the ongoing discussion.
Origin of Union Conferences
External Influences
The three SDA church founders had religious backgrounds primarily from the
Christian Connexion and Methodist Episcopal churches. The Christian
Connexion emerged around 1800 as a part of the restorationism movement.
2
They
were not officially organized though they had a publication that somewhat unified
them. Their only creed was that they had no creed besides the Bible alone.
3
The
two SDA founders from this movement were James White and Joseph Bates.
Methodism was founded by John Wesley in the early 1700s, and the SDA founder
from this denomination was Ellen White. The suggestion may arise that in
addition to these two religious streams, there was influence through others who
joined the SDA Church as it progressed. There was some Seventh Day Baptist
(SDB) influence through Rachel Oaks and Baptist influence through J. H.
1
In the United States, the Pacific and Columbia Union Conferences have decided to
ordain women. In Europe, some conferences have decided to forgo ordination altogether
in favor of commissioning both men and women. In each of these cases, the intent is to
practice gender inclusiveness in the credentialing process, regardless of the distinction
effectively retained during the 2015 General Conference Session where a recommendation
to allow divisions to decide whether or not to ordain women was voted down.
2
George R. Knight, “Christian Connexion,” in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, 2nd ed.,
ed. Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2014), 702.
3
Merlin D. Burt, “Development of SDA Theology” (lecture, Andrews Theological
Seminary, Berrien Springs, MI, February 14, 2018).
A REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE UNION CONFERENCE . . . 59
Waggoner. Oaks only officially joined the SDA Church during the last year of her
life, so her influence was not significant to the structure of the church.
4
J. H.
Waggoner died in 1889, limiting his potential influence on church structure.
5
Among those alive during the 1901 GC Session, there were only one or two
individuals who might have imported ideas from another church structure. One of
them was W. A. Spicer, who was the son of an SDB minister.
6
He became an
Adventist at nine years of age, however, so it is doubtful that he inherited much
knowledge of the SDB church structure. S. N. Haskell converted to Adventism at
nineteen years of age, but he was formerly a Congregationalist.
7
A. T. Jones
studied himself into Adventism while in the army and was baptized during the
1870s.
8
No records indicating any prior religious affiliation could be found for
him. A. G. Daniells’s mother, Mary Daniells, was a devout Methodist. When she
became an Adventist, he followed her in baptism at the age of ten.
9
O. A. Olsen,
W. W. Prescott, and E. J. Waggoner were all second-generation Adventists. Lastly,
Uriah Smith’s religious background is somewhat unclear though it is likely that his
parents may have been Baptist before joining the Millerite movement. At the age
of twelve, Uriah was “baptized by an Adventist elder early in the summer of
1844.”
10
It was not until 1852, however, that he decided to join the Adventist
movement.
11
With this context in mind, where might we expect to find the kind of influence
needed to spark the idea for the union conference model in 1901? Since the
Christian Connexion Church had no official organization and is still a
Congregational church today (known as the United Church of Christ), it is
obvious that searching there will likely yield little fruit.
12
In contrast, Seventh Day
4
Merlin D. Burt, “Oaks-Preston, Rachel (Harris) (1809–1868),” in The Ellen G. White
Encyclopedia, 481.
5
Denis Fortin, “Waggoner, Joseph Harvey,” in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, 537.
6
Arthur W. Spalding, Origin and History of Seventh-day Adventists (Washington, DC:
Review & Herald, 1961–1962), 2:29.
7
Ibid., 1:217.
8
Gerald Wheeler, A. T. Jones: Point Man on Adventism’s Charismatic Frontier, Adventist
Pioneer Series (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2011), 17–18.
9
Ben McArthur, A. G. Daniells: Shaper of Twentieth-Century Adventism, Adventist Pioneer
Series (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2015), 20.
10
Gary Land, Uriah Smith: Apologist and Biblical Commentator, Adventist Pioneer Series
(Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2014), 19.
11
Ibid., 23.
12
The Christian Connexion was one of the Congregational streams that came to
comprise the General Convention of the Christian Church, according to John Von Rohr,
The Shaping of American Congregationalism, 1620-1957 (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1992),
390–91. For a simple chronology tracing Congregationalism to the General Convention of
60 SEMINARY STUDENT JOURNAL 4 (SPRING AND FALL 2018)
Baptists established a general conference in the United States in 1802.
13
They
functioned with a high degree of autonomy, with each congregation being
independently incorporated and holding the title to its own property. SDB
churches were free to write their own covenant statement, constitution, and
bylaws.
14
Ordination, budget, worship, hymnbooks, selection of pastors and so
forth were historically coordinated by the local church as well.
15
Over time, there
were efforts to bring about some degree of cohesiveness through the formation of
associations and societies. Associations were proposed in 1834 so that churches
could appoint delegates to their General Conference. The purpose of this was to
offset the cost of having to send delegates from every local church, while still
being represented in some way.
16
Every association remained completely
autonomous, and many churches simply chose not to become members of an
association, preferring direct representation.
17
For those who were even more
hesitant to join an association, societies arose with voluntary membership open to
individuals from any or no denomination. Whereas associations of churches
required consensus before acting, societies were often comprised of people with
common interests who paid dues to be members. This in turn funded the
activities of the society. Most of the work accomplished by the SDB Church since
its foundation has been done through these societies.
18
We know that Adventists
were likely well aware of the structure of the SDB Church because Adventist
leaders including W. W. Prescott, J. N. Andrews, Uriah Smith, D. M. Canright,
and James White attended their General Conferences during the 1870s. James
White even gave an address on the relations of the two denominations at their
1876 General Conference.
19
No consolidation resulted between the Seventh Day
Baptists and Adventists due to opposite views on important doctrines.
20
By 1901,
their General Conference voted an amendment to double the number of delegates
appointed by the churches, demonstrating an ongoing, almost congregational
the Christian Church, which eventually became the United Church of Christ, see also J.
William T. Youngs, Denominations in America, vol. 4, The Congregationalists (New York:
Greenwood, 1990), 341.
13
Don A. Sanford, A Choosing People: The History of Seventh Day Baptists (Nashville, TN:
Broadman, 1992), 136.
14
Don A. Sanford, Greater Than Its Parts: A Study of Seventh Day Baptist Organization and
Polity (Janesville, WI: Seventh Day Baptist Historical Society, 1994), 4.
15
Ibid., 4.
16
Sanford, A Choosing People, 159–160.
17
Ibid., 167.
18
Ibid., 171–172.
19
Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America (Plainfield, NJ: American Sabbath Tract
Society, 1910), 1:200–205.
20
Ibid., 1:206.
A REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE UNION CONFERENCE . . . 61
autonomy between churches, associations, and societies represented at their
General Conferences.
21
To the present day, these organizational dynamics persist,
as articulated in their manual of procedures with its heavy emphasis on the
autonomy of local churches.
22
The SDB church structure provides almost no
comparison to what we see in the 1901 restructuring of the SDA Church.
Methodism, on the other hand, holds more promise for this study, but
resources describing their organizational structure in the early 1900s are few and
far between. In spite of this, the literature that is available demonstrates that there
are some similarities to the SDA church structure. According to Nolan B.
Harmon, a “Joint Commission on Union” outlined all duties of the Methodist
General Conference and its authority to define and fix the powers and duties of
annual conferences, mission conferences, missions, districts, quarterly
conferences, and church conferences.
23
In spite of the similarity in terms, this
Joint Commission on Union bears no resemblance to the union conferences
familiar to Seventh-day Adventists, and the correlation is likely incidental at best.
This does not mean that no equivalent was ever formed by Methodism since they
did eventually form groups of conferences into the equivalent of what we know
today as union conferences. These were also organized by geographic region in
what was called the jurisdictional plan. In this case, however, we also know that
their structural plans as an organization would have had no influence on Seventh-
day Adventism because Methodism only initiated them in 1911. This came an
entire decade later than union conferences in the SDA structure.
24
Where we can
draw helpful (though admittedly nonconclusive) insight is from the understanding
Methodists had regarding their inter-structural accountability dynamics. It is
helpful to be aware of the broader evangelical understanding of a structure so
similar to ours even though it came a decade later since it is indicative of the
general thought of those times. Describing the relationship between the
jurisdictional conferences and their General Conference, Harmon writes,
That of the Methodist Episcopal Church, with Bishop Earl Cranston at the head,
suggested that there be five ecclesiastical jurisdictions with the Negro membership
of the church in one of these; that each jurisdiction be allowed to nominate (not
elect) its pro rata representation in the Board of Bishops; that it should suggest
legislative action, and manage its own affairs in all matters not entrusted to the
General Conference. The General Conference, keeping its supremacy, was to
21
Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America, 1:233b.
22
“Seventh Day Baptist Manual of Procedures 2015,” Seventh Day Baptist General
Conference of USA and Canada, 2015, D-2, accessed April 8, 2020,
http://seventhdaybaptist.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/SDB-Manual-of-
Procedures-2015.pdf.
23
Nolan B. Harmon, The Organization of the Methodist Church: Historic Development and
Present Working Structure, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Methodist Publishing House, 1962), 107.
24
Ibid., 168.
62 SEMINARY STUDENT JOURNAL 4 (SPRING AND FALL 2018)
manage all matters for the Jurisdictional Conferences, and bishops were to be
bishops of, and for, the entire connection. Significantly enough, it was also
recommended that there “shall be a Judicial Council elected from the jurisdictions
and having all appellate power.” The proposed council could, however, be reversed
by a two-thirds vote of the Annual Conferences.
25
Two points are worth emphasizing here: first, it is clear that the Methodist
General Conference retained supremacy even with the establishment of a
jurisdictional structure; second, any decisions made by the Judicial Council elected
from the jurisdictions could be reversed by their Annual Conference. Although
jurisdictions were intended to help the church operate more effectively in
managing the administration of work in their respective localities (including the
electing of bishops), it is clear they were still accountable to the Methodist General
Conference. This General Conference would still make laws and govern church-
wide matters as the sovereign power in their organizational structure.
26
Even
though this information may be valuable to show a trend in thought within
Evangelical Christianity in the early 1900s, the specific structural developments in
the Methodist Episcopal Church come too late to have had a direct influence on
the organizational restructuring in the SDA Church.
From the denominations considered, it would appear that there was little or no
clear external influence on SDA union organization. In fact, it is worth noting that
the 1901 GC Session minutes do not refer to any other denomination in relation
to the discussions held on organizational restructuring.
Internal Influences
Since it seems that there was no outside denominational influence on the union
conference idea, the search must turn elsewhere for further insight. Fortunately,
there are several sources that talk about where these ideas arose. According to
Jerry A. Moon, W. C. White was the first to start talking about a “district” plan.
27
Furthermore, Moon states that according to Gilbert M. Valentine, W. C. White
was also the primary “architect of the Union Conference” rather than A. G.
Daniells.
28
25
Harmon, The Organization of the Methodist Church, 168–169.
26
Ibid., 172.
27
Jerry A. Moon, W. C. White and Ellen G. White: The Relationship between the Prophet and Her
Son, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 19 (Berrien Springs, MI:
Andrews University Press, 1993), 183.
28
Ibid., 186. See also Gilbert M. Valentine, “A. G. Daniells, Administrator, and the
Development of Conference Organization in Australia,” in Symposium on Adventist History in
the South Pacific, 1885-1918, ed. Arthur J. Ferch (Wahroonga, NSW, Australia: South Pacific
Division of Seventh-day Adventists, 1986), 79.
A REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE UNION CONFERENCE . . . 63
Where did W. C. White get this idea? According to R. Schwarz and F.
Greenleaf, S. N. Haskell spent some time in Europe and helped facilitate a
meeting for leaders from the various regions of the field. This meeting became an
annual occurrence, and a basic organizational structure began to emerge based on
the needs present. Ellen White and W. C. White were able to see how this
structure was coming together when they attended in 1885 and 1886.
29
Their visits
initially planted the seed that would bear fruit over time as the increasing need
arose for a far more efficient means of administration in each part of the rapidly
expanding mission field.
In 1893, President O. A. Olsen suggested setting up an administrative
organization to work between the layers then in existence (local conferences,
missions, and other organizations) and the GC. This further set the stage for the
1901 union conference plan, according to Arthur L. White.
30
During 1894, the
first Australian camp meeting took place. This was not just a regular camp
meeting, however, since it came to serve a similar purpose as the meetings in
Europe in the 1880s. Forty delegates attended from throughout Australia. This
meeting formed what came to be known as “the first intermediate entity, the
Australasian Union Conference.”
31
As a reflection back to this time, A. G.
Daniells would later explain in 1913 that it “was for the purpose of . . . dealing
authoritatively, administratively, with South Pacific Ocean questions, Australian
problems, so that any conference might get this word from a center of authority
right there.”
32
This union conference would come to be the key model for the
1901 reorganization.
33
The Rationale for and Implementation of Union Conferences
By the end of the year 1900, the SDA Church had expanded to 75,767 members
from 3,500 members in 1863, which is the earliest year for which we have
membership records.
34
For some time, the centralization of leadership in such a
29
Richard W. Schwarz and Floyd Greenleaf, Light Bearers: A History of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2000), 252.
30
Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: The Australian Years, 1891-1900 (Washington, DC:
Review & Herald, 1981), 4:61.
31
Schwarz and Greenleaf, Light Bearers, 253.
32
“Conference Proceedings - Thirteenth Meeting,” The General Conference Bulletin Thirty-
Eighth Session 7, no. 7 (May 23, 1913): 108, accessed April 8, 2020,
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/GCSessionBulletins/GCB1913-
07.pdf.
33
Schwarz and Greenleaf, Light Bearers, 255.
34
“Church Membership,” Office of Archives, Statistics, and Research, 2016, accessed
April 8, 2020, https://www.adventistarchives.org/church-membership.
64 SEMINARY STUDENT JOURNAL 4 (SPRING AND FALL 2018)
rapidly expanding church had been a growing challenge, so when Ellen White
shared her thoughts at the 1901 GC Session, Ben McArthur writes that she
advocated for shared leadership. She stressed, “There are to be more than one or
two or three men to consider the whole vast field.”
35
Moon notes that she did not
want to prescribe exactly how this needed to be done.
36
As McArthur explains,
Daniells then took over from there and suggested the appointment of a general
committee that could look at what would need to be changed in conference
procedures to bring about a model such as had been so successful in Australia.
37
It is worth noting the context that led to this point. There were at least two
primary challenges hindering the work of the SDA Church at this time. The first
was consistent poor decision-making by relatively few individuals at the GC. One
such individual was the president of the GC, Elder Olsen, in 1891. Concerning
him, Ellen White wrote that God did not sanction his methods and plans and that
he was wrong to make positions appear to be the voice of God through the GC
when they were arrived at through the decisions of only a few.
38
By 1895, she said,
“There is no voice from God through that body that is reliable.”
39
In 1909, she
clarified such statements by explaining that she only claimed the GC was not the
voice of God when only a few men were behind the decisions made. She went on
to affirm that “God has ordained that the representatives of his church from all
parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have
authority.”
40
This is worth noting because it demonstrates an intentional
differentiation between the decisions of two or three GC workers and the GC
Session with its broader representation.
The second problem was keeping up with organizational needs, given the
work’s rapid expansion. In a 2017 article explaining the historical need for the
unions, David Trim writes that with the GC trying to provide administration for
eighty-seven subordinate bodies around the world by 1901, members were
increasingly frustrated and the mission was being impeded. As an example of this,
Trim shares how A. G. Daniells and others in Australia met with great frustration
over the amount of time it took to correspond with the GC headquarters to get
matters settled, sometimes as long as nine months.
41
Taking the gospel to the
35
McArthur, A. G. Daniells, 99.
36
Moon, W. C. White and Ellen G. White, 269.
37
Ibid., 99–100.
38
Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1990),
17:167.
39
Ibid., 17:178.
40
Ibid., 17:215.
41
David Trim, “Unions and the General Conference in Historical Perspective,” General
Conference Executive Committee Newsletter, August 2017, 2, accessed April 8, 2020,
A REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE UNION CONFERENCE . . . 65
world demanded the church do a better job. The only way to make that happen
would be to rewrite how the organization functioned. This would allow for more
rapid expansion and mission growth. At the same time, expanding and
reorganizing the decision-making bodies would prevent a small group of leaders at
the GC headquarters from processing and making decisions over matters they
often lacked sufficient context to understand.
Reporting on the proceedings at the 1901 GC Session, The Advent Review and
Sabbath Herald quotes A. G. Daniells expressing his vision of what the
reorganization could do to solve the ongoing challenges:
If Union Conferences are organized, a thousand details will be taken from the
General Conference Committee, and placed in the hands of the local men, where
they belong. They do not belong to the General Conference. . . . Why, my friends,
unless God helps us break up this condition and work as we never have before, it
will take a millennium to carry this message to the world. We have not begun yet,
with the greater nations of the world.
My idea is that the General Conference Committee should leave the details of the
affairs of America in the hands of the Union Conferences. They should deal only
with the questions that are general, and that refer to the whole world. Of course
America is a part of it, a little bit of it, and must have a little attention from this
General Conference, but the world must have the attention of this Conference
Committee.
42
In line with this idea, the general committee suggested by A. G. Daniells came
to be known as the “Committee on Counsel.” Their task was to figure out a way
to bring the various lines of work together through a restructuring that resulted in
the union conferences we know today. According to Arthur White, the model
whereby they incorporated the various lines of work was known as the Robinson
plan, based on what A. T. Robinson had done toward organizing the work in
Africa.
43
Some of the lines of work that were incorporated into departments under
the union conferences included the medical ministry, Sabbath School, and tract
and missionary efforts.
Barry D. Oliver explains that even though Ellen White was very intentional
about the need for decentralization, “she was careful, however, to stress that
decentralization did not mean anarchy. Her calls for representation and
https://executivecommittee.adventist.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ECN-August-
2017.pdf. See also “Conference Proceedings - Thirteenth Meeting,” 108.
42
A. G. Daniells, “Notes from General Conference,” Review and Herald, April 30, 1901,
8.
43
Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: The Early Elmshaven Years, 1900-1905 (Washington,
DC: Review & Herald, 1981), 5:84–85.
66 SEMINARY STUDENT JOURNAL 4 (SPRING AND FALL 2018)
decentralization were tempered by the need for unity in the church.”
44
The GC,
therefore, called for the various international organizations that had worked
independently to become a part of the GC as well, including the Sabbath School
Association, Religious Liberty Association, and Foreign Mission Board, among
others. Each major organization would be represented on the GC committee.
45
The result was an expansion of the GC committee from thirteen people in 1889
46
to twenty-five after the reorganization.
47
This immediately broadened
representation and further helped solve the centralized decision-making problem.
These plans were so successful that by the end of Daniells’s first term, Valentine
notes that “he had organized thirteen union conferences, three union missions,
and reorganized twenty-three local conferences.”
48
Historical Inter-Structural Accountability
Initial Inter-Structural Trust
The late Gerry Chudleigh argued for the idea that “unions and conferences were
autonomous” upon their establishment.
49
This idea is reaffirmed by George
Knight, who cites Chudleigh as his source.
50
In particular, Chudleigh argued that
the unions “were created to act as firewalls between the GC and the conferences,
making ‘dictation’ impossible.”
51
This claim has the potential to be misleading if it
44
Barry D. Oliver, SDA Organizational Structure: Past, Present and Future, Andrews
University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 15 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews
University Press, 1996), 168.
45
White, Ellen G. White, 5:91.
46
Ted N. C. Wilson, “Fearless in God’s Name,” General Conference Executive Committee
Newsletter, October 2018, 4, accessed April 8, 2020, https://executivecommittee.adventist.
org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ECN-October-2018.pdf.
47
“Summary of Proceedings of General Conference,” The General Conference Bulletin Thirty-
Fourth Session 4, no. 2 (1901): 501, accessed April 8, 2020, http://documents.
adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/GCSessionBulletins/GCB1901-02.pdf.
48
Gilbert M. Valentine, The Prophet and the Presidents: Ellen G. White and the Processes of
Change, 1887-1913: A Study of Ellen White’s Influence on the Administrative Leadership of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2011), 218.
49
Gerry Chudleigh, Who Runs the Church? Understanding the Unity, Structure and Authority of
the Seventh-day Adventist Church (2013), 18, accessed April 8, 2020, https://session.
adventistfaith.org/uploaded_assets/454468.
50
George R. Knight, “Catholic or Adventist: The Ongoing Struggle Over Authority +
9.5 Theses,” Spectrum 45, nos. 2–3 (2017), accessed April 8, 2020,
https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2017/10/02/catholic-or-adventist-ongoing-
struggle-over-authority-95-theses.
51
Chudleigh, Who Runs the Church?, 18 (emphasis added).
A REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE UNION CONFERENCE . . . 67
is not framed in the proper context. The context Chudleigh gives is that the
member delegates (constituency) of each entity were and are responsible for the
election of their respective leaders. He further explains that union conferences had
their own constitution and bylaws and possessed the autonomy necessary to
oversee work relevant to their fields. While these points are true, they were not
without exception, as one might suppose based on this “firewall” idea.
Union conferences were established with a large measure of trust because, as
will be seen in the sections to follow, it was understood by both sides that they
were naturally subject to GC decisions in relation to any general matters that were
brought to a vote in GC Session. This trust relationship developed both ways. The
GC entrusted the administration of the work in each geographical region to each
respective union conference. The rest of the church, in turn, trusted that the GC
would “deal only with the questions that are general, and that refer to the whole
world,” as Daniells envisioned at the 1901 GC Session.
52
Because the SDA
Church had (for the most part) always operated on a basis of trust, it was only
natural for the GC Session to assume that all constituents would comply with any
corporate decisions. Similarly, it was natural for all constituents to assume that the
GC would carry out its responsibilities as articulated by GC Session and GC
Executive Committee decisions. Stanley Patterson explains that “because the SDA
system is built on relationships, trust, free association, and a common mission, we
have survived for 150 years without enforcement.”
53
Enforcement typically comes
when mutual trust begins to crumble. One could also argue that it was because the
ultimate motivation for the reorganization was to enable more effective worldwide
mission that trust was a crucial component. This is because the work of spreading
the gospel to the world is more than an organization can accomplish merely by
managing employees. Volunteers were necessary, and that inherently required
trust. The SDA Church as a whole was not yet at a place in history where it
seemed necessary to consider what might happen with breaches in trust at any
level. Breaches in trust, if any of its entities should choose to set sail in winds
contrary to the rest of the organization, were simply not yet precedented when
union conferences were formed. At that time, they were far more concerned
about the miscommunications, misunderstandings, and lack of familiarity those at
the GC had with the local needs of the work in distant fields. As such, the 1901
changes in structure were designed to keep mission at the forefront. Trust alone
did not mean full union conference independence and autonomy, however, as will
be shown. Perhaps the practical questions to ask here are: How and where has
trust been broken, and how can each side work to reestablish it?
52
Daniells, “Notes from General Conference,” 8.
53
Stanley E. Patterson, interview by author, October 28, 2018.
68 SEMINARY STUDENT JOURNAL 4 (SPRING AND FALL 2018)
Initial Inter-Structural Accountability
It is important to recognize the broader context and intentions clearly discernable
from that time. Just as a new vehicle’s manual might not speak to the specifically
nuanced details of how to relate to a variety of unexpected scenarios (i.e.,
repeatedly bumping your head on the door frame as you enter it), only basic
general expectations were in place, without detailed outlines in the policies of the
church at this time.
54
It would be natural to expect that policy would be updated
to accommodate future conditions that challenged or otherwise differed from the
intent originally inherent in this restructuring.
There are several lines of evidence that describe the general tenor of
understanding when the structural reorganization took place in 1901. First, the
October 2018 edition of the GC Executive Committee (GCEC) newsletter claims
that “each union president became an ex officio member of the GC Executive
Committee. The GC Executive Committee’s authority was increased, and the
Union Conferences were given some operational autonomy, although the unions
were subordinate to the General Conference Executive Committee—the body that created
them.”
55
This newsletter was released with the intention of clarifying this point so
as to demonstrate that the structural hierarchy had been in place all along.
Unfortunately, a citation was not provided for this statement, so some searching
through the GC Session Bulletin records is necessary to evaluate whether or not
each part of it is true.
The 1901 GC Session Bulletin appears to substantiate these points. A brief
summary of the GC Session actions recorded by it are as follows: (1) The union
conferences were formed by the endorsement and request of the GC; (2) each
union conference president was to be elected as a member of the GCEC, and any
changes of district territorial lines were to be referred to the committee on
constitutions and plans, which the GC Session had also organized; and (3) union
conferences were to forward the balance of any income in tithe that they did not
find necessary for their own administration so that it could be used to maintain
the work of the GC and also to be redistributed to weaker church entities.
56
These
three points seem to indicate that the October 2018 GCEC newsletter is not far
off, depending on how one understands these actions. Additional perspective is
also available from the union conference side of the reorganization.
54
This claim is easily demonstrated by comparing the 63-page first edition of the GC
Working Policy with more recent editions. See Working Policy of the General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists (Washington, DC: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,
1926).
55
Wilson, “Fearless in God’s Name,” 5 (emphasis added).
56
“Summary of Proceedings of General Conference,” 501.
A REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE UNION CONFERENCE . . . 69
One of the six unions formed within the United States in 1901, the Pacific
Union Conference, was proactive about publishing a weekly paper called the
Pacific Union Recorder right from the beginning of their operation. A brief survey of
discussion related to authority and accountability in the issues they released within
the first few months paints a clear picture as to how they viewed their relationship
with the GC. The first issue that was published states that, while modified, the GC
“still continues the center and principal factor in this great work of God on
earth.”
57
The next sentence refers to the unorganized fields as being a large part of
the GC’s responsibility. To be fair, though, what the “principal factor” means here
is not clearly defined. In the fourth issue, a report is given on the division of the
California Conference to form a new Southern California Conference.
Interestingly, the constitution for the Southern California Conference clearly
stated that no amendment to the constitution could be made that conflicted with
the Pacific Union Conference or General Conference constitutions.
58
On a
question regarding how to manage and spend Sabbath School offering, issue 10
goes as far as to suggest that churches avoid reallocation of the Sabbath School
offerings in order to be in harmony with GC plans even though they technically
had the right to reallocate it.
59
Issue 16 refers to the GC Committee as having
accepted “the highest responsibilities of the denomination, to see that every
feature of the Lord’s work is carried out by those to whom the work pertains.”
60
Finally, issue 17 contains a statement in the “President’s Address” section in
which W. T. Knox refers to a decision made “with the understanding that the
General Conference would permit the second tithe from the conferences within
our borders to be used.”
61
As can be seen, the Pacific Union Conference viewed their autonomy as only
extending to the point that the unique needs of their mission fields did not run
into conflict with the GC constitution. Further, they desired to be in harmony
with specific GC plans even when it came at a financial inconvenience in some
cases, as the Sabbath School offering decision demonstrates. This clearly suggests
that they understood themselves to be subordinate to the decisions of GC Sessions
and even the plans of the GC between sessions. The thought that union
conferences were so autonomous as to be either solely or primarily responsible to
57
W. T. Knox, “Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,” Pacific Union
Recorder, August 1, 1901, 3.
58
C. A. Pedicord, “The Southern California Conference,” Pacific Union Recorder,
September 12, 1901, 4 (emphasis added).
59
C. R. K., “Query Corner,” Pacific Union Recorder, December 5, 1901, 8.
60
A. G. Daniells, “Personal Responsibility in the Sale of ‘Christ’s Object Lessons,’”
Pacific Union Recorder, March 13, 1902, 14.
61
W. T. Knox, “President’s Address,” Pacific Union Recorder, March 27, 1902, 1
(emphasis added).
70 SEMINARY STUDENT JOURNAL 4 (SPRING AND FALL 2018)
their constituencies rather than the GCEC and GC Sessions (in matters voted by
either body) appears to lack supporting evidence here, especially on matters that
were general and related to the whole world, as Daniells envisioned.
62
The
evidence at this point in history appears to suggest inter-structural accountability.
This should be unsurprising. After all, it was the GC Session that authorized the
existence of union conferences, including their boundaries and even policies on
surplus income. Such a context simply would not be expected if they were
autonomous and independent in a broader sense. At the same time, since GC
decision-making was expanded to include voice and vote from these unions on
the GCEC and at GC Sessions, this helped further decentralize GC decision-
making.
Inter-Structural Relations in Working Policy
In 1922, the GC established a “Committee on Constitution and Working Policy,”
not to create new methods but to gather the actions that had been taken into a
format that could be more easily accessible.
63
This came to be known as the
Constitution, Bylaws, and Working Policy of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,
hereafter referred to as the GC Working Policy. The very first edition of this GC
Working Policy was published in 1926. Since then, it is updated after each GC
Session to remain current on the policies that are voted there. Although this first
edition came a decade after Ellen White’s death in 1915, a consistent continuation
of thought from the evidence already evaluated appears to be present and
reaffirmed, especially considering the Southern California Conference
constitution, which did not allow for deviation from the Pacific Union
Conference or the GC constitutions in 1901, as already seen.
In the section entitled “General and Divisional Relationships,” the nature of
the relationship between the GC and the rest of the church is described as
follows:
The General Conference is not something apart from the churches and
conferences and union organizations, but is the sum of all these, the uniting of all
the parts for unity and co-operation in doing the work which Christ instituted His
church to accomplish. The administrative authority of the General Conference is
therefore the authority of the entire church joining together by this form of
organization for the doing of the gospel work and the maintaining of the unity of
faith in all the world.
64
62
A. G. Daniells, “Notes from General Conference,” 8.
63
W. A. Spicer, “Proceedings from General Conference,” Review and Herald, June 10,
1926, 2.
64
Working Policy of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (1926), 17.
A REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE UNION CONFERENCE . . . 71
The verbiage of this statement is helpful because it indicates that the
representative system established by incorporating churches, conferences, and
unions into the overall GC structure made it authoritative in those actions which
furthered its goals. There was no separation considered possible between
organizational levels beyond the understanding that each organizational level was
primarily responsible to administer to the missional and operational needs of its
respective field. Further, we see that the GC was seen as an administrative
authority though local matters would obviously be handled locally wherever there
was not a conflict between collective GC Session votes and local activities. Since
some matters are significant enough to have worldwide effects throughout the
church, it follows logically that such questions would appropriately fall under the
purview of the GC Session so that the sum of its entities could work together to
determine the way forward.
Conclusion
This paper has attempted to discover where the idea of geographically organized
union conference structures originated in the SDA Church. It has been shown
that the idea can be traced to organizational meetings that occurred in Europe,
along with the Australasian Union Conference, established several years before.
Geographically organized groupings of multi-church collaboration were not
unknown to evangelical Christianity, as seen in SDB societies, though full
autonomy was maintained by self-governing churches. Furthermore, the
Methodist Church developed a very similar structure to the SDA Church in 1911.
Some of the challenges necessitating the 1901 organization were discussed,
including the challenge of too few leaders being responsible for too broad a field,
along with the problem of distance and communication speed frustrating the
work. With the expansion of the GC to include more ex officio members on its
Executive Committee, the reason Ellen White had said it was not the voice of
God was addressed, at least as long as decision-making continued to remain more
broadly representative and free from manipulation. Lastly, evidence for the inter-
structural accountability of union conferences to the GC has been evaluated from
the perspective of the GC, the 1901 GC Session Bulletins, and early Pacific Union
Conference publications. Since their very inception, the union conferences appear
to have been representative, interconnected parts of the church as the body of
Christ (1 Cor 12:27; Col 1:18). It seems clear that the relationship of trust
established at that point in time included a mutual understanding that, while the
union conferences were in charge of the specific, administrative details pertinent
to their local efforts, as defined by their constituencies, this was not without inter-
structural accountability to the GC. Similarly, the rest of the church trusted the
GC to fulfill its role of carrying out its responsibilities over general, church-wide
matters as articulated by GC Session and GCEC decisions while leaving specific,
administrative matters to the union conferences. In so doing, the SDA Church
72 SEMINARY STUDENT JOURNAL 4 (SPRING AND FALL 2018)
could maximize its ability to reach the world with the message of the gospel and
Christ’s soon return. So long as both sides pursued that mission without going
beyond their purview, that trust continued.
Going forward, several questions in need of further evaluation and study are:
(1) How should union conferences relate to matters that they and other
constituents of the GC contribute voice and vote on? (2) Should union
conferences be expected to prioritize uniform practice when votes that affect the
church as a whole differ from their own ideals? (3) Should they prioritize their
own field in divergence from representative decision-making as they see fit? (4)
What implications might such actions have on trust, church structure, and practice
in the future? (5) How might the GC balance their responsibility to uphold GC
Session and GCEC decisions while recognizing that bilateral trust is crucial to
ongoing unity in the church? How these questions are answered will no doubt
have a significant and lasting impact on church unity and the continued mission of
the SDA Church.
