Our evangelists differ radically from those of the popular churches about us. Other evangelists are virtually independent in expression and action. They say and do and write about as they wish. They present and represent their own views, and have no unified front. Baptists or Methodists, for example, range all the way from ardent fundamentalists to the very opposite, and freely declare their variant views. Their evangelists frequently support themselves—or at least supplement their earnings--from the offerings received in their public meetings. They may have been ordained perhaps by two or three local ministers, but not by denominational authority. When they speak they speak not for a denomination but for themselves. They arrange their own itineraries and set their own patterns. They are decidedly individualistic, and do not form our model in any sense.
Ours is a vastly different relationship all around. Seventh-day Adventist evangelists are ordained by conference action, in concurrence with union and General Conference approval. Their salaries come from the conference, not from the local church or the public offerings of their meetings. They are amenable to the conference organization. They hold their meetings where arranged by the conference committee. They travel and conduct their work under conference supervision. Moreover, they speak not for themselves, but in a unique sense constitute the public spokesman for a world movement. That is a vastly more weighty relationship. They not only present their own views but are commissioned to give the message of the remnant church to the world, which is a distinct safeguard.
Ours is a representative capacity, like that of an ambassador to another land. We are an integral part of a united program—a unified world message, with all that that implies. We work not for our own interests but for the common interests of the cause. We are soldiers, under orders, in the army of the Lord. We speak and act in harmony with the master plan and the over-all strategy. We are not our own.
This gives us a backing and an authority unknown to independent evangelists. But it also involves certain obligations, and inevitably imposes certain restraints upon us. We do not have the liberty to go where we will, to preach whatever we wish, and to publish whatever we may fancy. Such independent prerogatives we surrender when we become public ministerial representatives and official spokesmen for the Second Advent Movement. We operate under supervision and are accountable to our directing committees for our words, our acts, and our influence.
Consequently, our ministers do not have liberty to conduct their work in such a manner as to bring reproach or reflection upon the cause through gaudy sensationalism, or methods of work that are disapproved. They are not authorized or empowered to misrepresent either the spirit or the message of the church whose credentials they bear and whose support they accept. They do not have freedom to teach whatever they will in such representative capacity. The public declaration of personal theories and individualistic ideas out of harmony with our recognized teachings has no lawful place when one labors in an organization that operates under policies adopted by the church in representative assembly, and which are therefore binding upon all.
The Adventist minister, however, gains vastly more than he yields. We can all be grateful for our organizational setup and the advantages it gives us. Few men would accomplish anything noteworthy if they functioned as independent popular evangelists of the day. It is the power of the message of God that gives us persuasiveness with men, and the close-knit organization and affiliation of this movement that lends us our backing and makes us effective for God.
The entire movement is judged, rightly and logically, by the public utterances and attitudes of our ministers ; and their fellow ministers are similarly adjudged by their declarations. No man lives to himself in this cause, and no man absorbs all the blame for any misrepresentation he may make. It reflects upon the cause at large. That is the serious part. These reproaches are spread out and encompass one's brethren in the ministry. Hence, we cannot operate in our form of organization without certain well-defined limits.
Our spoken utterances should therefore be guarded and considered. We should always speak under the consciousness of this representative capacity. This obligation obviously increases with the widening of the scope of our ministry. It is patently more serious for one to make a blunder before three thousand than before three hundred, or thirty. To reach three hundred thousand or three million over the radio, increases the ratio of responsibility for our utterances. And he who teaches, or trains, others must be doubly careful. By the same token, the misstatements of a prominent worker are more serious than those of an intern or novice. These, of course, are but axiomatic principles.
Inadvertence in oral utterance can often be explained as extemporaneous inexactness, a slip of speech, or as having been misunderstood. This will usually be accepted. But when such a statement is committed to paper, and is down in black and white, inaccuracies and errors cannot so easily be explained away. Whatever goes out to tlie public, even in mimeographed form, is taken seriously and stands on record as a definite commitment. It should therefore be painstakingly checked by associates of experience for expressions that might mislead or be misconstrued.
In public estimation mimeographed material is considered as hurriedly prepared and more or less temporary. But when it comes to printed sermons or books, then such explanations will no longer avail. The damage of printed errors of fact is vastly greater than that of transient mediums. A book is regarded as a considered and finished permanent product by which the writer may be justly judged. And when he speaks representatively, as one of our public men, then the movement itself is judged, logically and legitimately, by his published product. That is where all the rest of us are unavoidably involved.
That is why we have explicit denominational regulations—Autumn Council actions, imbedded in the heart of our Constitution, Bylaws, and Working Policy, pages 59 to 62, and therefore binding upon every worker bearing denominational papers—which provides that all publications from our men shall pass through the safeguarding provisions of issuance inherent in publication through one of our regular publishing houses. That means, first of all, that the members of a competent reading committee will read the manuscript, and if found suitable and representative, will recommend it to the book committee of the house. After due consideration, if approved, the manuscript is recommended to the board for publication, subject to the editorial corrections and improvements recommended by the readers.
If the board authorizes publication, the manuscript then passes through the hands of experienced book editors and competent copy editors to check on facts, dates, quotations, arguments, and lines of thought, in order to bring it into acceptable printing style and in harmony with denominational positions. It is painstakingly proofread by trained proofreaders in a series of revisions—six in all. Then the corrected proofs of the pages are read for the last time by both author and book editor, to eliminate all possible errors and to ensure a representative product. Even then, with all these screening safeguards, some errors still slip through and must be corrected in any subsequent edition. All this is done to perfect the printed product and to protect the denomination and the public from incompetent and irresponsible publication, and to make it truly representative literature of our common cause.
No experienced writer or editor, with all his literary training, background, or competency, would wish to take the risk of private publication and consequent misrepresentation and comeback. He is keenly aware of the aforementioned principles. No man is fully informed in all fields—doctrinal, prophetic, historical, scientific, archaelogical, artistic, and literary. That is why group work in publication is needed to protect and to eliminate inaccuracy. That is why such safeguarding regulations came, because some forgot these principles, and issued unrepresentative products that misrepresented the cause and cheapened us in the eyes of the world.
These principles have a foundation stronger than mere human wisdom or expediency. They have the explicit counsels of the Spirit of prophecy behind them. These permeate the book Counsels to Writers and Editors (particularly the chapters on "Independent Publishing" and "The Book Committee," pp. 152-161). And Mrs. White's own general practice and insistence on the issuance of her own books through the protective and authorized channels of our regular publishing houses are examples for us all. Once, back in 1907, when Mrs. White was urged to authorize publication by outside firms, for greater sales and lower cost, she wrote to one of our prominent pioneers :
"We must be careful not to work for disorganization. We must not get out of line. I am fearful regarding any plan that would take the work out of the hands of our publishing houses ; for this might lessen the confidence of our brethren in these important agencies for the dissemination of present truth. . . . Regarding my books, I feel that I cannot take them into my own hands, and thus weaken the work of the office of publication. It would not be wise for me to make a move that would look as if I did not have confidence in our leading publishing houses. We must do all things in a righteous way. We must not weaken the hearts and hands of those of whom we expect so much. . . . We must press together, and take no step that will bring confusion to our publishing work. . . . I have concluded to have my books handled just as they have been in the past. I shall encourage our brethren to scatter them like the leaves of autumn, but I shall leave my books to be handled by the publishing houses."—Letter 70, 1907.
Again in 1908, when she was urged to concur in a plan to print and sell privately a large quantity of Early Writings, Mrs. White reiterated her position in these words (as found in Letter 94):
"It would be a great mistake to follow methods in the publication and sale of your books that would injure your influence. . . . I cannot give my consent to have any of my books handled at the present time in the way you suggest. It would make upon the minds of some of our brethren an impression that would not be desirable."—Letter 94, 1908.
All who wish to function in harmony with denominational principle and procedure will gladly follow this plan. No worker who has a worth-while manuscript that ought to be published will hesitate to subject it to this selective, perfecting process. It will be recognized and approved. And no one whose manuscript cannot pass these reasonable requirements should want to have it accepted. If a worker is conscious that a manuscript probably would not pass a reading committee, publishing house board, and the editorial processes, and, therefore, places it with an outside firm for private printing, where it may slip through in its rough, original form, he has not only violated our established policy but has tacitly confessed that his manuscript would probably not pass the test, and is therefore not representative of this movement. That is a fair deduction.
Ministry in the Advent Movement is truly more serious and weighty than in other Protestant churches generally. Utterances from the desk, particularly when put down in printed form, involve the good name of a whole movement—God's final message to men. Our men wish to operate in such a way as to protect their own names, the names of their brethren, and the fair name of the cause we love. Then let us observe the spirit and the letter of these wise provisions. Ours is an exalted task and a solemn responsibility. We are to work cooperatively, wisely, and well.
L. E. F.
