the stop-start journey on the road to a church-manual

Because "we have gotten along well... without a manual," declared the General Conference president, the church did not need one.

Other denominations might have developed a church manual as they reached "a certain magnitude" and saw "the need for uniformity" but, George Butler insisted, this was not for Adventists. Once a denomination started down that road there was no logical stopping place. "Hence," he said, "we stop without a church manual before we get started." ¹

It was 1883, and Butler was explaining in the Adventist Review why the recent General Conference Session had rejected having a church manual. A committee of ten church leaders had been appointed by the session to join with the General Conference Executive Commit tee in order to look at a proposal. The manuscript had appeared in segments in the Adventist Review.² The commit tee, which had been addressed by Mrs. White in person, unanimously recommended that the session reject the church manual.³

Session delegates accepted the recommendation but asked Butler to explain why to the wider church membership. Butler was so certain of his ground that he said: "It is probable that it [the question of having a church manual] will never be brought forward again."⁴

He was wrong.

The manual itself

The authors of the manuscript were stunned. As respected senior pastors,⁵ they had written the document specifically at the request of the General Conference and had carefully addressed concerns the committee had raised. Specifically, the manual was not to be prescriptive or to "be regarded as invariable under all circumstances." Rather, it was to be a document that was to be "simply" taken as "suggestions," offered for "the assistance of those who feel they have need of aid and are not unwilling to accept the counsel of others." Yes, it contained a "statement of the fundamental principles," but was "never to be regarded as a cast-iron creed to be enforced in all of its minor details upon the members of the Seventh-day Adventist church."⁶

The church desperately needed a manual, according to Elder W. H. Littlejohn, pastor of the Battle Creek congregation. "The condition of things" in the church had "changed materially" in recent times.⁷ The denomination had expanded greatly, and new churches were constantly being organized. Further more, younger preachers had received no training and little or no experience in church management.

Others agreed. Dudley M. Canright said that the previous year church membership had risen to fifteen thousand worshiping in almost seven hundred churches. One hundred and fifty fully ordained pastors and a similar number of licensed ministers serviced these congregations.⁸ None had benefited from adequate training.⁹

Against this background, the "propriety of having a church manual" had been agitated at several General Conference sessions. Finally, in 1882 the preparation of a document was authorized.¹⁰ Littlejohn, Corliss, and St. John worked on a manuscript that Canright had previously put together. They then published the material in the Adventist Review so that the church could appraise it and delegates could "vote intelligently" at the session scheduled for the following year.

Policy book or manual?

When discussion of a "manual" had first arisen at the General Conference Session in 1878, what had been requested was really a policy book with "Constitutions and By-Laws" and guidance on parliamentary procedure. What the 1882 session asked for, however, was specifically a manual that would provide "Instruction to Church Officers" at the local church level. Thus the proposed manual addressed both. It specifically dealt with issues of local church order and governance but also policy. After dealing with the name of the church and the principles of organization, it dealt with matters such as how to organize a local church, appoint officers, admit new members, and discipline existing members. It outlined the duties of church officers and explained how to conduct quarterly church business meetings, ordinances, weddings and funerals, as well as how to care for tithe, the matter of ministerial credentials, and the holding of church property. Substantial parts of the material provided biblical justification for particular Adventist practices and beliefs. The manual was basically descriptive, as indicated by the frequent use of such phrases as "it is customary among Adventists," "at the present time," and "experience has shown." The manual also included Uriah Smith's summary Statement on Fundamentals. ¹¹

A survey of the Adventist Review of 1882-1883 indicates that the young denomination was working hard at developing a consensus on matters of church polity, teaching, and practice. Considerable diversity of practice and sometimes confusion existed among the churches. Issues disputed included the nomination process for church office, the election of local church leadership, the transfer of church membership, and the form of the Communion service. Discussion of these issues resulted in a definitive resolution by either a local conference or the General Conference.

Why not a manual?

Some of the questions implicit in the history of the designing of a church manual among Seventh-day Adventists are the following: If there was an ongoing process of codification of practice through regular decisions at annual General Conference Sessions, if normative approaches to church life were being established, if there was a demonstrated need for a manual of instructions what was the problem with collating these in "manual" form? If the reasons for rejecting a manual were good then, might they not still be good today?

In their unanimous report the manual review committee said their concern was that the move would be a step toward "the formation of a creed, or a discipline, other than the Bible," something the denomination had "always been opposed to." ¹² Six specific dangers were identified for rejecting the manual.

1. The danger of moving away from the Bible as the "word of counsel" and the church's only creed and discipline. Session delegates felt it would be inevitable that the manual would eventually take the role of shaping the church instead of the Bible. The church had already successfully surmounted the "difficulties" associated with adopting a formal, structured organization without the aid of a manual. Would not the adoption of one make further growth and development more difficult rather than less difficult?

2. The danger of formalism. Church members and ministers would tend to rely on the manual instead of on their individual God-given powers of judgment and the direction of the Holy Spirit.

3. The danger of trying to define, too closely, things upon which the Bible is silent. If God had wanted the church to have a manual containing such instruction about church life, the Spirit would have left one "with the stamp of inspiration upon it."

4. The danger of insisting on uniformity. Circumstances vary. Individual problems should be dealt with on merit. "Union" already prevailed throughout the body. "Uniformity" was not necessary.

5. The danger that the document would become a test of orthodoxy. Although, of course, not intended "to have authority or settle disputed points" nevertheless, because the document would be approved by the General Conference and be issued under its "auspices," it would inevitably carry "much weight of authority." It would become prescriptive of what must be done, not just descriptive of what generally had been done. Those who did not follow would be considered "out of harmony with established principles."

6. The danger of the slippery slope: Where does one stop? Churches in the past, feeling the need for uniformity, had prepared documents to "guide the inexperienced." These had grown in number and authority until they had become "authoritative." It was best not to start down that road and give "even the appearance of such a thing."

What signals might have prompted the anxieties Butler, Mrs. White, and their colleagues felt? Was there any evidence in the document, or in the church of these kinds of difficulties? Perhaps.

Although the preface to the pro posed manual acknowledged that its purpose was to provide "a few simple rules" and not a set of directions to be regarded as "invariable under all circumstances," a clenched fist did lie hidden beneath the velvet glove. The expectations for an "orthodox" compliance were stated strongly in places. For ex ample, the importance of including footwashing in the Communion service is stressed.¹³ The manual expressed the hope that ministers who fail to comply with this "will be dealt with in a summary manner." Was it this approach to ensuring compliance with orthodoxy that raised concerns?

Elsewhere the manual set out practices that today seem quite narrow even though we know that they reflected practices and perspectives of the time. For example, the procedure for accepting new members into fellowship required a unanimous "rising vote" on the part of the members attending the quarterly meeting. If only one church member objected, the motion to accept the new member was lost. Furthermore, members could not withdraw from fellowship voluntarily. They could be removed from the church roll only by transfer to an other Adventist church, by death, or expulsion.¹⁴ With the benefit of hindsight it seems clear that formal codification of church practice and belief into an "authoritative" manual at this stage would have been premature, inhibiting the development of the church into a fellowship of believers broad enough to take on a worldwide mission.

Another example of the document's rather authoritarian approach deals with organization. The manual reflects a somewhat harsh attitude toward the brethren who had been on the losing side in the earlier organizational debate. While in 1883 church leadership was confident in the "perfect harmony" on the matter of formally structured church organization, perhaps the wounds from the strident debates 25 years before had still not healed. The manual had the potential for reopening old wounds. Those who had opposed organization were uncharitably described as being only "elements of weakness in the body," who had brought only "confusion and dis traction." ¹⁵ Perhaps the "perfect harmony" trumpeted in 1883 was not quite that perfect. Codifying things into a church manual so soon after these debates might have prompted a renewal of the debate.

The manual also suggested there was still a lack of consensus on some issues. These parts of the manual presented a reasoned debate setting out arguments justifying why, for example, the church had adopted a name and or ganization. The intended audience seems to be other Adventists who had not joined with the Sabbath keepers rather than pastors and church members within the body. Did this type of content suggest to the review committee that the document might tend to become a kind of creedal statement rather than simple "hints" for effective church governance?

Clearly, the detailed instructions about the conducting of weddings and funerals troubled some on the commit tee who saw them as a possible drift toward formalism. J. H.Waggoner, editor of the Signs of the Times®, thought so. He expressed to W. C. White that "nothing of the kind that was published in the Adventist Review" was what had actually been requested, certainly not formalistic "minute directions how to conduct weddings!"¹⁶

More reasons for rejection

The reasons outlined above were the ones that President Butler was prepared to discuss publicly. But there were also "other reasons," he said, why the church manual was rejected. ¹⁷ A study of the 1883 period and of the specific content of the manual suggests what some of these might have been.

Canright, one of the leading advocates of the manual, whose earlier material constituted a significant part of it, had retired from preaching to take up farming. He had become discouraged, disillusioned with the church, and disenchanted with Mrs. White; his sentiments were partially shared by Review Editor Uriah Smith. These negative attitudes concerning Mrs. White and some doctrines were known. Perhaps the association of the manual with Canright made it difficult to adopt, given Canright's uncertain status. ¹⁸

The Marion party of former Adventists in Iowa was newly active in 1883. They were critical of the church and Mrs. White over changes in the reprinting of some of her early testimonies. The denomination was sensitive to these charges. Perhaps changing from an anti-creedal stance to the adoption of a manual might have exposed the church to even more criticism than it could then handle.

Perhaps there was just too much on the agenda for the church at that time. The period of 1882-1883 had been difficult, witnessing the closing of Battle Creek College as well as intense criticism of Mrs. White, her son W. C. White, and other editorial helpers over changes made in reissuing the Testimonies. Adventist Review editor Uriah Smith's loyalty was also temporarily under question. Was he perhaps more inclined to side with the opposition on some issues?

Conclusion

Despite the fact that the codification of church practice and belief continued through actions of the local and the General Conferences, and despite the strong need of the church and the ministry for formalized guidelines, the 1883 General Conference Session saw more in the dangers associated with developing a church manual than they saw in the benefits of having one. Fifty years later circumstances and attitudes had changed to the extent that the desirability of adopting a church manual outweighed the fears that it would become a creed. George Butler's prediction that the idea of a church manual had been dispatched forever proved false. By 1932 the General Conference Committee had adopted a fully developed model.

In 1883 the church turned away from a manual because it feared such a document would become prescriptive and a test of orthodoxy rather than descriptively outlining a "few simple rules" based on effective existing practice. In the decades since the adoption of a church manual in the 1930s, the manual has been widely accepted and has been enormously helpful in bringing strength and cohesion to the church. But as the church on the threshold of the twenty-first century wrestles with issues such as marriage and divorce, the ordination of women, tithing, and the relationship of churches to conferences, a new consensus seems difficult, despite the presence of the Church Manual. Does the existence of a church manual today make progress more or less difficult? Should the concerns expressed in 1883 keep us aware of the role of the manual as primarily a "descriptive" document rather than a "prescriptive" one? And does such a perspective suggest that new initiatives and developments in the church seem best taken at a more local conference or church level (in counsel with leadership) where implications can be studied, dangers averted, and corrections made within a manageable arena? Amendments to the manual would then be adopted to ensure that it reflects successful existing practice rather than trying to amend it to determine future practice.

The next article in this two-part series, scheduled to appear in the June issue, will explore the background of the shift in the denominational attitude toward a manual and trace the story behind its development.