Capitol Free SDA

Some Helpful History on the Church Manual
>
> Verbatim account as reported in the R & H of Nov. 20-27, 1883
>
> Compiled by A. Keith Anderson. All emphases and expressions in brackets by
> compiler.
>
> Review and Herald, November 20, 1883 (Report on the GC)
>
> “FOURTH MEETING, Nov. 9, at 3:00pm
>
> “At the last annual session of the Conference, it was recommended that a
> manual of instructions to church officers be prepared, and a committee [J.O.
> Corliss, W.H. Littlejohn, H.A. St. John] was appointed to consider the
> matter and report at this session. W.H. Littlejohn, the chairman of the
> committee, reported at this meeting that the committee had prepared a series
> of articles, containing instructions to church officers, which have been
> printed in the Review [June 5 to Aug. 28, 1883] under the title, “The Church
> Manual”. It was thought best to print them in the Review first, in order to
> give opportunity for examination and criticism before the matter should come
> up for final action at this session. After further remarks upon the subject
> by Elds. S.N. Haskell, G.I. Butler, H.A. St. John, and W.C. White, it was:
>
> “Voted, that the Chair appoint a committee of ten to act with the General
> Conference Committee in the examination and consideration of the
> churchmanual. This committee was announced as follows: W.C. White, H.
> Nicola, J.H. Cook, S.H. Lane, O.A. Olsen, M.H. Brown, R.F. Andrews, J.B.
> Goodrich, A.S. Hutchins, H.W. Decker.
>
> “SEVENTH MEETING, Nov. 12, at 3:00p.m.
>
> “The committee appointed to consider the matter of the church manual, made
> in substance the following report:
>
> “It is the unanimous judgment of the committee, that it would not be
> advisable to have a church manual. We consider it unnecessary because we
> have already surmounted the greatest difficulties connected with church
> organization without one, and perfect harmony exists among us on this
> subject. It would seem to many like a step toward the formation of a creed,
> or a discipline, other than the Bible, something we have always been opposed
> to as a denomination. If we had one, we fear many, especially those
> commencing to preach, would study it to obtain guidance in religious
> matters, rather than to seek for it in the Bible, and from the leadings of
> the Sprit of God, which would tend to their hindrance in genuine religious
> experience and in knowledge of the mind of the Spirit. It was in taking
> similar steps that other bodies of Christians first began to lose their
> simplicity and become formal and spiritually lifeless. Why should we imitate
> them? The committee feel, in short, that our tendency should be in the
> direction of simplicity and close conformity to the Bible, rather than in
> elaborately defining every point in church management and church ordinances.
>
> “On motion, this report with reference to the church manual was accepted
> unanimously (see article following). It was then also:
>
> “Voted, That the President [G.I. Butler] of the General Conference be
> requested to write an article for the Review, explaining the action of the
> Conference on the subject of the manual.”
>
> [The President’s article follows in entirety under the title “No Church
> Manual”]
>
> No Church Manual
> “The writer was requested by the recent General Conference to make a brief
> statement through the Review of the action taken in reference to the
> proposed church manual. For four or five years past, there has been with
> some of our brethren a desire to have some manual of directions for the use
> of young ministers and church officers, etc. It was thought that this would
> lead to uniformity in all parts of the field, and afford means of
> instruction to those who were inexperienced, and be very convenient in many
> respects. Steps were taken several years ago to prepare a manual, but for a
> time it was left unfinished. Last year, at the Rome Conference, the matter
> came up for consideration, and three brethren were appointed a committee to
> prepare a manual, and submit it to the Conference this year for its approval
> or rejection. During the past summer, the matter they have prepared has
> appeared in the Review, and has doubtless been well considered by its
> readers.
>
> “At the recent Conference a committee of thirteen leading brethren were
> appointed to consider the whole subject, and report. They did so, and
> unanimously recommended to the Conference that it was not advisable to have
> a church manual. Their reasons were briefly given in the report of
> Conference proceedings given in last week’s Review. The Conference acted
> upon this recommendation, and quite unanimously decided against having any
> manual. In doing so, they did not intend any disrespect to the worthy
> brethren who had labored diligently to prepare such a work. They had
> presented much excellent matter, and given many valuable directions
> concerning church ordinances, holding business meetings, and many other
> important questions, and had done as well, no doubt, as any others would
> have done in their place. The reasons underlying this action of the
> Conference were of a broader character. They relate to the desirability of
> any manual whatever.
>
> “The Bible contains our creed and discipline. It thoroughly furnishes the
> man of God unto all good works. What it has not revealed relative to church
> organization and management, the duties of officers and ministers, and
> kindred subjects, should not be strictly defined and drawn into our minute
> specifications for the sake of uniformity, but rather be left to individual
> judgment under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Had it been best to have a
> book of directions of this sort, the Spirit would doubtless have gone
> further, and “left on record with the stamp of inspiration upon it. Man
> cannot safely supplement this matter with his weak judgment. All attempts to
> do it in the past have proved lamentable failures. A variation of
> circumstances requires variation in action. God requires us to study
> important principles which he reveals in his word, but the minutiae in
> carrying them out he leaves to the individual judgment, promising heavenly
> wisdom in items of need. His ministers are constantly placed where they must
> feel their helplessness, and their need of seeking God for light, rather
> than go to any church manual for specific directions placed therein by other
> uninspired men. Minute specific directions tend to weakness, rather than
> power. They lead to dependence rather than self-reliance. Better make some
> mistakes and learn profitable lessons thereby, than to have our way all
> marked out for us by others, and the judgment have but a small field in
> which to reason and consider.
>
> “While brethren who have favored a manual have ever contended that such a
> work was not to be anything like a creed or a discipline, or to have
> authority to settle disputed points, but was only to be considered as a book
> containing hints for the help of those of little experience, yet it must be
> evident that such a work, issued under the auspices of the General
> Conference, would at once carry with it much weight of authority, and would
> be consulted by most of our younger ministers. It would gradually shape and
> mold the whole body; and those who did not follow it would be considered out
> of harmony with established principles of church order. And, really, is this
> not the object of the manual? And what would be the use of one if not to
> accomplish such a result? But would this result, on the whole, be a benefit?
> Would our ministers be broader, more original, more self-reliant men? Could
> they be better depended on in great emergencies? Would their spiritual
> experiences likely be deeper and their judgment more reliable? We think the
> tendency all the other way.
>
> “The religious movement in which we are engaged has the same influences to
> meet which all genuine reformations have had to cope with. After reaching a
> certain magnitude, they have seen the need of uniformity, and to attain to
> it they have tried to prepare directions to guide the inexperienced. These
> have grown in number and authority till, accepted by all, they really become
> authoritative. There seems to be no logical stopping place, when once
> started upon this road, till this result is reached. Their history is before
> us. We have no desire to follow it. Hence we stop without a church manual
> before we got started. Our brethren who have favored such a work, we presume
> never anticipated such a conclusion as we have indicated. Very likely, those
> in other denominations did not at first. The Conference thought best not to
> give even the appearance of such a thing.
>
> “Thus far we have got along well with our simple organization without a
> manual. Union prevails throughout the body. The difficulties before us, so
> far as organization is concerned, are far less than those we have had in the
> past. We have preserved simplicity, and have prospered in so doing. It is
> best to let well enough alone. For these and other reasons, the church
> manual was rejected. It is probable it will never be brought forward again.”
>
> Note: A church manual was published 49 years later in 1932.
>