Congregational Adventism

Your local church just might enjoy a congregational style or organization. Imagine what you could accomplish, as a local church, if you retained all of the tithe and offerings that were not used to pay your minister. And imagine if you, as a church, were free to determine whether you would ordain women? And what if your congregation were as free to hire and fire ministers of its choosing as it was to ordain local elders?

Another benefit would be freedom to develop doctrine without fear of losing your church building, or being disbanded, by a disapproving conference.

Congregational churches were common in New England where Adventism was born. The congregational mode of organization there was adopted as the best way to avoid the overbearing control of central organizations. Many viewed the Roman papacy as a natural consequence of structure above the local level. Power corrupts. You get the idea. And so it was that many of the puritans established self-governing churches.

Congregational churches today are often associated together in loose forms of higher organization. The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, is a collection of self-governing churches. The liberal United Church of Christ, with just over one million members, and the more conservative bodies knows as the Churches of Christ, with just over five million members, are all congregational in polity.

Adventism began as a collection of believers that retained their previous denominational connections. And while this might naturally tend to produce a congregational structure, another large force was also at work to keep Adventism from becoming thoroughly and legally organized.

The followers of Miller didn’t want to become Babylon. And if Babylon were defined as the union of church and state, then it was difficult for many to see how an organization could legally organize (and thus be recognized by the state) without imitating the dread union.

So when Sabbatarian Adventism arose, it inherited Millerite Adventism a lack of authoritative organization. This lack of order brought no boon of evangelistic success, no financial benefit to the cause. After 1844 the message of Adventism lost its ability to inspire droves of people to spontaneous giving. Some ministers, with no means of regular support, returned to secular means of making a livelihood. And so, after a dozen years of congregationalism, James White argued for church order after recounting the financial woes of itinerant ministers:

Ellen White offered other observations in favor of establishing church order. The fear of structure and administrative order was leading to “self-sent men” teaching the gospel abroad, but without proper oversight. These persons, trusted prematurely, were bringing the church into disrepute by their blunders.

Workers that would not have been ordained by “the brethren generally” can easily be “the most confident that they are . . . called [of God] and that their labors are very important.” Even if “souls receive the truth by hearing them talk it, this is no evidence that they are called of God. . . . These self-sent messengers are a curse to the cause.” And how might this problem be alleviated? “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.'” EW 98-100.

By 1907 the church was ready to publish a book on the topic of church order. An excerpt from that book forms another chapter of this edition of Adventist Affirm. In that book Loughborough rehearses how the brethren of experience shuddered when they heard W. W. Prescott promote at the 1899 General Conference a view of church order similar to that of the opposition in the 1860’s. It was a view of church order that would replace representative voting with direct dependence on the Spirit’s guiding.

Prescott’s ideas did not prevail in 1899. Nor were the opposers able to prevent organization in the 1860’s. Ministers began to receive regular support. Erratic workers were identified. Heretical ones were hushed. Institutions came into legal existence and received support.

Yet almost one century later the question of congregationalism resurfaced in three Adventist movements. None were alive who remembered firsthand how mission, finance, and discipline had floundered before the development of the structure. The recent congregationally organized congregations fall generally into one of the following camps.

Historic Seventh-day Adventists

Ellen White defined the church in the following manner:

This definition of the “church”, often today called the “invisible church”, corresponds to the “wheat” in the phrase “let the wheat and the tares grow together.” John Grosboll developed this idea into part of a theological justification for promoting a congregational approach to church order. Two such congregational churches, congregations with no affiliation with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, have been planted south of Wichita.[1]

Large Policy-Flaunting Congregations

On the other side, some (large, affluent) churches have adopted a congregational approach in ignoring denominational policies. Several churches in North America have hired a female to be their head minister. A notable example of these is Sligo, near Washington D.C. Though the senior pastor there is, at the time of writing, a male (Charles Tapp), three of members of the five-person pastoral team are females.

These congregations, at least for a time, differ from historic Seventh-day Adventists in that they maintain their organizational connection to the larger structure. While legally organized as part of the structure, they operate in certain lines, as congregational structures. And by failing to separate from the structure they save themselves legal hassle that has hounded “historic” Seventh-day Adventist churches.[2]

Mission Catalyst

On the liberal side, some congregations have joined the Mission Catalyst movement. Ron Gladden, the founder of the Mission Catalyst movement, is raising independent churches.

Though not thoroughly congregational (10% of donated receipts are committed to the stewardship of the parent organization, making them similar to congregational associations mentioned in the head to this article) Ron’s organization is not shy about its congregational nature:

And that brings us to the crux of the matter. Is the work of God’s church on earth better served by congregational flexibility or by denominational oversight and order?

Several years ago I was working with the Three Angels Seventh-day Adventist Church in Wichita. I learned that one of my classmates from academy was working nearby with Steps to Life organization, mentioned above as a leader in the home church movement.

I was troubled when I heard that, but I visited the organization’s headquarters, attended some services, and found the people there peaceable and kind. I came away from my visit still troubled about congregationalism, but I had no firm arguments against it. I knew the historic Adventist position, and I knew the congregationalist’s reasons for opposing it, but I didn’t see why a mature Christian might not properly think for himself and arrive at congregationalist conclusions.

I determined to study the issue more thoroughly. And so I read Loughborough’s book on church order, examined texts related to church discipline, and made many an effort to find from Ellen White’s pen whether or not congregationalism was Biblically sound. Her teaching was both plain and abundant. Congregationalism is weak in discipline, ineffective for mission, and financially wasteful.

Evidence from the Bible

The book of Acts is full of examples of church authority existing above the congregational level. The question of circumcision that troubled the Galatian church was not a matter for each congregation to decide for itself. Rather, “they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question” (Acts 15:2).

The nature of the proceedings show that the decision of the council was the result of deliberative process. Paul had a chance to present his views. Messianic Pharisees had a chance to present their case as well. (Acts 15:4-5). In the actual meeting we find no pope-like pronouncement. Rather, “when there had been much disputing” (Acts 15:6) Peter rose up and shared undeniable practical evidence in favor of Paul’s position. (v. 9-12) After a period of quiet James rose and presented scripture evidence in favor of the same position (v. 13-18). With that he made what we could call “a motion.”

The decision, when made, was by consensus. James stated, “My sentence is. . .” (v. 19) and the group agreed to write the letter that James described as “us being assembled together with one accord” (v. 25). That letter they regarded as an expression of the mind of the Holy Ghost and was thus to be regarded as authoritative by the local congregations.

In fact, the letter was received that way. The immediate congregations involved received the word “with joy” and the matter was settled without dissenters. Throughout the region the letter was effective. “And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.” (Acts 16:4-5).

The problem wasn’t just a matter of doctrine. In fact the scriptures offer no case of the first-century church forming a committee (council) to deal with doctrine. In Acts 6 and in I Timothy 3 we find committees assembled to distribute church funds and to set minimum standards for church leadership. The believers distributed funds without allowing local congregations to do what they liked with benevolent monies that came their way. Rather, they had seven men to distribute them, apparently to all the faithful. And when choosing spiritual leaders the apostles didn’t leave each church to its own minimal standards. There were universal standards, recorded in I Timothy 3, to which all churches were bound.

Discipline

Some who promote congregationalism do so because they are convinced that a central structure will naturally tend to abuse its power. They are under the belief that structures above the local church don’t preserve doctrinal purity or promote mission as much as they preserve bureaucratic power.

When I met men in Kansas convinced of this I wondered myself what could be done to prevent a denomination from slowly progressing from its roots towards apostasy. And while there is no cure for all ills, I can say that the Seventh-day Adventist church has done something important that tends to preserve it from slow drift.

In the General Conference Working Policy is a provision for disfellowshipping entire conferences. In my memory this has never been done, but I have seen conferences come very near to this. This policy is the equivalent of church discipline at a level higher than the local church and ought to have the approval of persons that approve of using discipline to protect the local church from apostasy.

Another preservation of doctrinal purity is in a denominational Fundamental Belief statement. But without some form of representative government, and some structure above the local church, how could such a statement be developed? Could a “home church” member recognize something in the fundamental belief statement as useful to protecting truth without having his vision cleared enough to recognize value in the organization that developed it?

Mission

Christ’s commission to all Christians is to make disciples, to baptize, and to teach these new believers all that Christ taught the disciples. This commission is as true for congregations as for individuals. Yet how often do we find a local congregation able to organize a major evangelistic series without looking for outside help? How often do we find a local congregation with the financial resources to support an evangelist without accepting external monies?

Those that find outside help or outside funds for the project are receiving a benefit from denominational organization. The ability to call on a conference evangelist, or to appeal to persons outside one’s own church to finance a local evangelism initiative, is afforded only by denomination.

And just as certainly, for the church to expand into new areas requires a high level of organized cooperation between congregations.

While church order and structure confer a great deal of efficiency to the church, they do not transform church leaders into mini-popes. Let us conclude our study of weaknesses of congregationalism with a reference to a vaccine for the same. It has often been an overbearing use of church authority that has prompted men to slide towards congregationalism. As we affirm the value of church structure at various levels, let us coat that pill with the sweetness of meekness in administrative styles.