James White

Women Speaking in Church

by

By James White, J.N. Andrews, Uriah Smith, and Ellen White

Shall Women Speak in the Church?

From: Morning Star March 14, 1871 James White, President

Among some Christian sects it is considered disorderly for women to speak or pray in a public assembly. Of course they quote 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 as deciding the case. Paul there says, “Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak.”

If this passage is to be taken as a general law, it is forbidden to a woman to speak, pray, or sing, in public, for silence is commanded. It is as much a violation of this scripture to exhort in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, as to exhort in prose and to pray. But no one thinks it wrong for women to sing in public; why should they forbid the other forms of speech, and allow this?

The fact is, Paul is here correcting abuses, disorders which caused confusion in the churches at Corinth, and he commanded those who possessed the gift of tongues to be silent, unless an interpreter was present, and that only one should speak at a time.

All of this concerned those who possessed, or pretended to possess, supernatural gifts, and were exercising them so as to cause confusion. Women were not to wrangle and to yield to pretended impulses, and become excited and immodest in such assemblies.

But nothing is proved by this in regard to what is proper in orderly, sober assemblies. Because it is very improper for women to take part in such meetings as they had at Corinth, it does not follow that they may not take part in orderly religious meetings.

In 1 Timothy 2:11, 12, women are commanded to learn in silence, and forbidden to teach, or usurp authority over the men. This cannot mean absolute silence, but the opposite of loquacity, impertinence, arrogance. In some of the churches they had fallen into the habit of disreputing, and becoming much excited, and the result was great disorder. Where women indulged in this, the matter was made worse, on account of their being generally more excitable than men, and immodesty on their part caused offense and scandal. It was very necessary that this should be forbidden.

Women who usurp authority over men, and become dictatorial in public assemblies, are very much out of place; but that does not prove it improper to speak in a proper manner.

That these passages do not forbid a modest, orderly utterance of their views, hopes and joys, in religious meetings, is evident from the fact that the Scriptures endorse and commend such acts. In 1 Corinthians 11:5, directions are given that women who pray and prophesy in public would follow the custom of society, and have their heads covered. If it was wrong for them to speak or pray in public, why give these directions? The only difference made between men and women, is that men are to uncover their heads, and women are to cover theirs, when they speak or pray.

Joel prophesied that under the gospel dispensation the “sons and daughters” should both prophesy, or exhort, as the word means; and Peter, Acts 2:17, so applies it. It is not likely that Paul’s words conflict with this.

Philip, the evangelist, Acts 21:9, had four daughters that were exhorters, and so noted and useful were their services, that the inspired writer was moved to mention them, that all other sisters having the same gifts might be encouraged to exercise them in the same way. When women are forbidden to speak for Christ, the spirit of the gospel is violated.—Morning Star.

“Let Your Women Keep Silence in the Churches.”

June 26, 1866 editorial by Uriah Smith, editor

Whether or not a woman has a right to take part in the public worship of God, has been with many, a serious question on account of the one declaration of Paul, found in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35, of which the heading to this article forms a part, and which has been supposed to refer to this subject. The whole passage as follows: “’Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

Taken independently of its connection, and in a general sense, it is not strange perhaps that this passage should suggest itself to some minds as a prohibition of any public participation in the worship of God on the part of females. Taken however in connection with the other instruction of the apostle with which it stands, and in view of the part assigned to females in other portions of the word of God, the evidence is to our mind conclusive that it is not designed so to teach.

  1. In spiritual matters, women have, in almost every age of the world, had an important part to act. Go back about thirteen hundred years before Christ, and we find Deborah a judge of Israel. She was a prophetess; and Israel sought to her for judgement, and received counsel and instruction at her hand. Judges 4:4-9.
  2. About seven hundred years after this, another prophetess appears in the record, 2 Kings 22:14-20. When Hilkiah, the high priest, found the book of the law which had lain for long years concealed in the house of the Lord, and had caused it to be read before Josiah, the king; the king rent his clothes, and sent the high priest with others to Huldah, the prophetess, to inquire of the Lord concerning this matter. And the Lord gave to the king and people through her, a fearful threatening of the overthrow of Jerusalem on account of the sins which had been committed.
  3. We come down to the birth of Christ, and there we find another prophetess acting a conspicuous part in the public worship of God. When the infant Saviour was brought into the temple, Anna, a prophetess, “coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.” Luke 2:36-38. Here we have an instance of a woman’s publicly teaching in the temple, and giving instruction to all them who were looking for redemption in the city of Jerusalem.
  4. In the great prophecy concerning the spiritual features of the present dispensation, Joel 2:28, 29, daughters as well as sons, handmaids as well as servants, were mentioned as those upon whom the Spirit should be poured, and through whom its operations should be manifested. Now can we suppose that Paul would give directions concerning the same subject, to apply at the same time, and lay down a rule which would completely cut off the prophecy of Joel from fulfillment on the part of the daughters and handmaids? Certainly not.
  5. We read in Acts 21:8, 9, of Philip, the evangelist, one of the seven, who had four daughters who did prophesy. Paul and his company came into his house in the year A.D. 60, one year after he had written to the Corinthians to have their women keep silence in the churches; but we do not read that he uttered any rebuke, or urged any protest, against their following their calling, and speaking to the disciples, to their edification and comfort.
  6. Paul, in Romans 16, A.D. 60, mentions Phebe as a servant of the church, Priscilla as one of his helpers in Christ Jesus, Tryphena and Tryphosa, as those who labored in the Lord, and Persis as one who labored much in the Lord, all women and fellow-helpers of the apostle. In Acts 18, 26, we read further of Priscilla, that in connection with her husband Aquila, she took Apollos and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly—a woman expounding the way of the Lord, and that too to a no less renowned personage than the eloquent Apollos. In Philippians 4:3, Paul speaks of other of his sisters in the church as follows: “And I entreat thee, also, true yokefellow, help those women which labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlaborers, whose names are in the book of life.” Here are women mentioned as laboring with Paul in the gospel, and whom he ranks with Clement, as his fellow-laborers. Can we suppose that these women were altogether silent in the churches?
  7. In chapter 11:5, in this same epistle to the Corinthians, Paul gives directions how the women should be attired while praying or prophesying in the public congregation, or “when they were come together in the church.” Verse 18. In verse 4 he says, “Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, dishonoreth his head.” Then he proceeds to give directions in regard to the women, “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoreth her head.” Here praying and prophesying are allotted to the woman no less than to the man. In chapter 14:3, he tells us what it is to prophesy: “He that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort.” In this way then it was designed by the apostle that women should speak in the church. There is no evading this conclusion; and the way some attempt to avoid it, is a little singular. Commentators of high standing, to save their position on chapter 14:34, that women should take no part in the public worship of God, explain Paul’s language in chapter 11:5, in reference to women’s praying or prophesying, by saying that Paul here “gave directions how it should be done, provided any such thing were allowable; but he did not mean to intimate that women ever would pray or prophesy; and in chapter 14, 34, he expressly forbids it.” We may be sure that the apostle indulges in no such trifling.
  8. No one will certainly contend that Paul excludes females from being members of the church. Yet in chapter 14:23, 24, he speaks about the whole church being come together, and all speaking with tongues, and all prophesying. This would include the sisters equally with the brethren.

We are thus brought to the question, What does Paul then mean by the language? “Let your women keep silence in the churches?” From the evidence thus far presented, we can take our stand positively on what he does not mean. He does not mean taking such public part in the service of God, as that of which we have such prominent examples in both the Old and New Testaments. He does not mean to cut off the prophecy of Joel from a great part of its fulfillment. He does not mean to contradict his own directions expressed in chapter 6:5. Hence he does not mean to forbid any kind of public exercise by which “edification, exhortation or comfort” is given to the church. If he does not mean any of these things, then there is a positive contradiction between Paul, and other sacred writers, and between Paul and Paul; which Bible believers will not be ready to admit; and if he does not mean any of these things, then his language is far removed from furnishing any objection to women’s taking part in the public worship of God, as conducted at the present day.

The question still remains, What does the language mean? On this point we may not be able to arrive at so definite conclusions, as on the inquiry, what it does not mean; but there are grounds for certain inferences, which are both fair and necessary.

  1. Paul is correcting wrongs and irregularities that existed in the Corinthian church. There were occasions when it was improper even for the men to speak. See verses 27-30. We may justly infer therefore that what he says in reference to the women, is of the same nature, and that the speaking he refers to is that which would be out of order, and cause confusion in the church.
  2. The antithesis of the command, “Let your women keep silence in the churches,” is expressed in these words: “But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” This shows that the speaking which is prohibited, is of that kind which would show that they were not under obedience. But what is meant by being under obedience? The Scriptures represent, that a subordinate position, in a certain sense, is assigned to the woman, for the reasons that she was formed from the man, and at a subsequent time, was first in transgression. 1 Corinthians 11:8, 1 Timothy 2:13, 14. The leadership and authority is vested in the man. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Genesis 3:16. This order is not to be reversed, and the woman take the position which has been assigned to the man; and every action on her part which shows that she is usurping this authority, is disorderly, and not to be allowed. Hence Paul says plainly to Timothy, 1 Timothy 2:12, “But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” There is no doubt but it was the very same point, the usurping of authority over the man, that the same apostle had in view in 1 Corinthians 14:34.
  3. The following remarks from Dr. Clarke, doubtless convey the true idea: “It is evident from the context that the apostle refers here to asking questions, and what we call dictating in the assemblies. It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, &c. in the synagogue; but this liberty was not allowed to any woman. St. Paul confirms this in reference also to the Christian church; he orders them to keep silence; and if they wished to learn anything, let them inquire of their husbands at home; because it was perfectly indecorous for women to be contending with men, in public assemblies on points of doctrine, cases of conscience, &c. But this by no means intimated that when a woman received any particular influence from God to enable her to teach, she was not to obey that influence; on the contrary she was to obey it; and the apostle lays down directions in chap. ix, for regulating her personal appearance when thus employed. All that the apostle opposes here is their questioning, finding fault, disputing, &c. in the Christian church, as the Jewish men were permitted to do in their synagogues; together with the attempts to usurp any authority over the man, by setting up their judgment in opposition to them; for the apostle has in view, especially, acts of disobedience, arrogance, &c. of which no woman would be guilty who was under the influence of the Spirit of God.” On the words, “It is a shame for women to speak in the church,” he says, “The apostle refers to irregular conduct as proved that they were not under obedience.”

That it was some such irregularity which the apostle was combating in the Corinthian church, appears further from the challenge he gives them in verse 36: “What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?” That is, did Christianity originate with you? Or are you the only church that has received the true light, that things should be tolerated in your midst which are not allowed in other churches?

Such being the nature of the things prohibited by the apostle, who can say that he has any reference to such testimony as faithful Christian women bear when they rise to speak a word for the Lord and his truth, to the strengthening of themselves, and the comfort, edification, and encouragement of all the church?

May Women Speak in Meeting?

January 2, 1879 by J.N. Andrews; James White, president

There are two principal passages cited to prove that women should not take any part in speaking in religious meetings. These are 1 Corinthians 14:34, 36 and 1 Timothy 2:12. But a careful study of the books of Corinthians shows that the passage first referred to can have no such application.

The Corinthian church was in a state of great disorder. The first chapter shows that they were divided into parties in reference to the apostles themselves. The fifth chapter shows that one had taken his father’s wife, and others did not mourn over this act. The sixth chapter shows that they went to law with the world, and implies that they were guilty of violating the seventh commandment. The eleventh chapter shows that when they celebrated the Lord’s supper, the rich ate and drank until they were intoxicated, and the poor were waiting and suffering hunger.

Now it appears from the fourteenth chapter when they were assembled in meeting, the women threw everything into confusion by talking among themselves, and acting with such indecorum as to be a matter of shame to them. So that what the apostle says to women in such a church as this, and in such a state of things, is not to be taken as directions to all Christian women in other churches and in other times when and where such disorders do not exist.

As positive proof that he was not speaking against a woman’s participating in religious worship, we refer to 1 Corinthians 11:5 where he says that every woman who prophesieth or prayeth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head. And in chapter fourteen, verse three, he says that he that prophesieth speaketh unto men, to edification, exhortation, and comfort. These two passages show that they (women) did speak to edification, exhortation, and comfort. It was not a shame for women to do this work. Therefore Paul did not refer to such acts when he said, “It is a shame for women to speak in church.”

1 Timothy 2:12. We understand this text to give Paul’s general rule with regard to women as public teachers. But there are some exceptions to this general rule to be drawn even from Paul’s writings, and from other scriptures. It appears from Phil. 4:3 that women labored with him in the gospel. Romans 16:1 shows that Phebe was a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea.

Verse 3 shows that Priscilla, the wife of Aquila, was one of Paul’s helpers; and Acts 18:26 shows that she was capable of instructing Apollos. Tryphena and Tryphosa, Romans 16:12, labored in the Lord; and Persis labored much in the Lord. Acts 21:8, 9. Philip’s four daughters prophesied. In Luke 2, Anna the prophetess is mentioned. Verses 36-38. In the time of Jeremiah, Huldah was a prophetess consulted instead of Jeremiah himself. See 2 Chronicles 34. In the fifth of Judges, Deborah is spoken of, and the fifteenth of Exodus, Miriam.

Paul, in Romans 10:10, says, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” and this must apply to women equally with men.

Women in the Church

May 29 1879 by James White (James White, J.N. Andrews, Uriah Smith editors)

“Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” 1 Cor. 14:34, 35.

The only safe and proper rule of Biblical interpretation is to take every passage of the Book of God as meaning what it says, word for word, excepting those cases where the text and context clearly show that a figure or parable is introduced for a more clear elucidation of the subject. In the foregoing text the apostle does not use a figure or a parable, therefore his words should be taken as meaning just what they say.

But there are many other passages from the epistles of Paul which speak as plainly of the position of woman in the house and work of God as this one does. And in order to arrive at the truth of God on this subject, a position must be found that will harmonize all the texts. The word of God is not “yea and nay,” but yea and amen, to the glory of its divine Author.
Paul, in the fourteenth chapter of his epistle to the church at Corinth, is correcting existing errors and establishing order in the church of Christ. He goes even so far as to give rules for those who, under the power of the Holy Spirit, are endowed with the gift of prophecy and of tongues. There were those women, doubtless, in the apostle’s day as well as in ours, who could prate about “Women’s Rights” as glibly, if not as filthily, as the notorious Victoria Woodhull. Hear the noble Paul on the subject in the same epistle where the foregoing text is found: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” 1 Corinthians 11:3. Paul continues in verses 4 and 5, and the reader will see that he places men and women side by side in the position and work of teaching and praying in the church of Christ, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreh her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”

But what does Paul mean by saying. “Let your women keep silence in the churches”? Certainly he does not mean that women should take no part in those religious services where he would have both men and women take part in prayer and in prophesying, or teaching the word of God to the people. The only view that will harmonize all that the apostle has said of the position and work of Christian women, is that he is giving directions relative to meetings of the church to consider the secular matters, which can be managed quite as well by the brethren as the sisters. We here give the following reasons:—

  1. Both men and women attend the religious services of the church. Both hear all that is said. The woman understands quite as well as her husband, sometimes better, all that is said. They return home from church. Now apply Paul’s statement to this case, “If they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home.” On the supposition that the husband has been out to a business meeting, may be to consult with his brethren in reference to building a meeting-house, or hiring the minister, matters in which she has deep interest, how consistent that the wife should inquire in reference to the decisions of that meeting which she did not attend.
  2. But on the supposition that they had both been out to a religious meeting, where the wife had heard all, understood all, the great apostle is charged with the ridiculous farce of both sitting down and asking and answering questions relative to matters with which they were both perfectly familiar. Consistently, thou art a jewel!

In the Sacred Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, holy women held positions of responsibility and honor. The first case we will here notice is that of Miriam, mentioned in Exodus 15:20, 21: “And Miriam, the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand, and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the Lord, for He hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.”

Compare with Micah 6:3, 4, where the great God appeals to rebellious Israel in these words: “O my people, what have I done unto thee? And wherein have I wearied thee? testify against me. For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.” Here we find a woman occupying a position equal to that of Moses and Aaron, God’s chosen servants to lead the millions of Israel from the house of bondage.

The next case is that of Deborah, mentioned in Judges 4:4-10: “And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah, between Ramah and Bethel in Mount Ephraim; and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh-naphatali, and said unto him, Hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward Mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun.

“And I will draw unto thee, to the river Kishon, Sisera, the captain of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand. And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go; but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go. And she said, I will surely go with thee, notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honor; for the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh. And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali to Kadesh; and he went up with ten thousand men at his feet; and Deborah went up with him.” Notice the following particulars in the foregoing statements:—

  1. Deborah was a prophetess. She received divine instruction from Heaven, and taught the people.
  2. She was a judge in Israel. The people went up to her for judgment. A higher position no man has ever occupied.

The next cases of honorable mention are Ruth and Esther. The books of these two women hold places in the book of God with his holy prophets. Their position in the work of God was such as to give their history a place with the sacred writings translated into hundreds of languages and dialects, to be read by millions down to the close of probationary time.

The prophet Joel, as quoted by Peter, Acts 2:17, 18, describes the last days thus: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And on my servants, and on my handmaidens, I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.” Here, too, women receive the same inspiration from God as men. And Paul speaks of the labors of Christian women in the highest terms of commendation and regard as follows: “I commend unto you Phoebe, our sister which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you; for she hath been a succorer of many, and of myself also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my helpers in Christ Jesus, who have for my life laid down their own necks; unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.” “Greet Mary who bestowed much labor on us.” “Salute Trypheha and Tryphosa, who labor in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis which labored much in the Lord.” Romans 16:1-4, 6, 12.

The prophet Simeon, and Anna the prophetess waited for the consolation of Israel at the close of the Jewish age, and with joy embraced the infant Saviour. The Christian age was ushered in with glory. Both men and women enjoyed the inspiration of the hallowed hour, and were teachers of the people. “Philip,” the evangelist, “had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.” Acts 21:8, 9. And the dispensation which was ushered in with glory, honored with the labors of holy women, will close with the same honors. Thus says God by his holy prophet: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” Acts 2:17.

The End

James White and Church Organization

by
by

It was the year of 1863. The United States of America was in the deadly embrace of a civil war. The eyes of the world were directed towards this nation. Could Protestantism and Republicanism stand? Even in 1863, this nation had already fallen far from what she once was. That very year the prophet wrote, “The people of this nation have forsaken and forgotten God. They have chosen other gods and followed their own corrupt ways until God has turned from them. The inhabitants of the earth have trampled upon the law of God and broken His everlasting covenant.” Testimonies, vol. 1, 355, 356. But while the nations of this earth looked on with disgust and indignation at the atrocities of the civil war, the most important battle of the day was little known.

This battle was being fought and won in humble homes and churches, in little known offices and most of all in the hearts of men. By the year 1863 many major victories had already been won in this battle of establishing a people in the third angel’s message. The Bible doctrines that were her foundation were in place. Each belief had been dug from the Scriptures. Each had the living testimony of the messenger of the Lord in its support. In various states, conferences were being formed to stabilize the work and guard against fanaticism. But in this year, there were new heights to be scaled and new victories to be won.

On June 6, 1863, the “health vision” was given. In and of itself the message of God on health reform marks 1863 as a never to be forgotten year. Health reform is the right arm of the message. “It is as closely connected with the third angel’s message as the hand is with the body.” Counsels on Diet and Foods, 69. For a people preparing for translation, the health reform was mandatory. “It is impossible for those who indulge in appetite to attain to Christian perfection.” Ibid., 22.

Yoked up with health reform was the vital matter of church organization which was finalized just two weeks before the vision on health. On May 20–23, 1863, the state conferences met and formed a general conference. John Byington served as chairman after the refusal of James of White. But that should deceive no one as to who was the driving force causing the formation of the General Conference. “Without James White’s dynamic leadership there would have been no organization of the Adventist Church in the 1860’s. For week after week, month by month, year after year, through the columns of the Review and Herald, he presented the importance of gospel order and led the members forward step by step toward his goal. A problem that he had to face was that he could see farther ahead than most of his brethren. And, of course, he was married to Ellen White, through whom God spoke directly to him on many occasions, counseling, encouraging, and stimulating his thinking.” James White, 164, by Virgil Robinson.

This man, James White, who brought about many victories for God’s cause: just what kind of a man was he? In our time we can only rely on pen pictures, as no one living was his personal acquaintance. This man, like Jesus’ disciples, had many natural abilities. However, as important as that is, we could never ascribe his success to that alone. Alexander the great, Napoleon and Nebuchadnazzer, all had many natural abilities, but James White’s abilities were surrendered to the use of God’s cause on earth. His wife, God’s prophet, “recognized the special talents God had given her husband. She wrote to him: ‘God has given you a good intellect—I might say a giant intellect . . . The cause of God cannot spare you without experiencing a great loss.’ ” Ibid. Later she wrote to her son, “Your father does the work of three men at all these meetings. I never saw a man work so energetically, so constantly as your father. God does give him more than mortal energy. If there is any place that is hard your father takes it.” Ibid.

In the 1990’s we are (or should be) well acquainted with the writings of Ellen White, the Lord’s special messenger. We know that those who read and study the testimonies from her pen become settled into the third angel’s message. But we are often unaware of the role James White played in the establishment of the remnant church. He ever had a great mission in mind, and was ever planning for its accomplishment. His mission was to cause the triumph of the third angel’s message over the powers of evil. His life was bound up in its welfare. When it prospered, he was comforted. But, when it languished, he sorrowed and went to work to heal it. He knew that for its final triumph, it must be a united body moving in perfect order against the powers of evil. For this cause, under God, he bent the powers of his “giant intellect.” Few men in God’s remnant church have ever had such a wonderful blend of executive ability combined with a profound theological knowledge of Biblical truth. But God saw that is what it would take to organize His church on earth.

With all that said, one would think those around him would see and appreciate his abilities. But history proves that this is seldom the case with anyone. We have only to remind ourselves of Paul, John the Baptist, Elijah, and Joseph to mention a few. The one, who with keen vision looks down the path and sees what course is needed, is usually derided by his contemporaries. It proved thus for James White. We should not be surprised, for our Lord and Master was scorned, and He was perfect. It was through His cruel humiliation that we were brought the blessing of salvation. And once again in the life experience of James White, we will see how the Lord turned scorn and derision into large blessings for his people.

This scorn and evil speaking played its role in bringing about the first General Conference meeting in May of 1863. When going through some bad experience we seldom grasp the full meaning of the promise, “For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.” 2 Corinthians 13:8. But, the historian of later years can look back and be amazed at the reality of the promise. As we will see by the story below, this is what happened with the rumors started against James White.

In 1862 and 1863, the work in Wisconsin was suffering from fanaticism. One of the leaders who was caught up in it was a Mr. T.M. Steward and his wife. They were claiming that Mrs. Steward had received visions. Because of this many sincere believers threw out all visions—including Ellen White’s. Others, in leadership positions, wanted to deny fellowship to new converts to the three angels’ messages until they had a chance to evaluate the prophetic gift and who consequently would not instantly state their belief in Ellen White’s visions. The Lord sent counsel to His people about the course to follow in this situation in Testimonies, vol. 1, 326–340 and 382–384.

Mr. Steward also opposed and criticized the idea of the organization of the believers. As is often the case, instead of attacking the message which cut across his ideas, he attacked the messenger—James White. The story is recorded in Ellen White: The Progressive Years, by Arthur White. It will be quoted here at length.

One way the great adversary sought to cripple the work of James White was in the circulation of rumors and falsehoods regarding his business integrity and honesty. Such criticism centered in northern Wisconsin, influenced by T.M. Steward. (See Testimonies, vol. 1, 311–323.) But criticisms were being heard from other areas where organization had been resisted. In early 1863 the Battle Creek church took steps to halt the malicious criticism. They recognized that James White’s reputation was not only of great value to him but also to “those who may be connected with the cause.” At a business meeting convened on Sunday, March 29, actions were taken to clear his name:

Resolved: That we, the church of Seventh-day Adventists of Battle Creek, deem it our duty to take measures to ascertain the grounds of the charges, complaints, and murmurs that are in circulation, that they may be sustained, and action taken accordingly, or may be proved to be groundless, and the envenomed mouth of calumny and slander be effectually stopped.

Resolved: That we appoint Brethren U. Smith, G.W. Amadon, and E.S. Walker, a committee to take this matter in charge.— RH, March 31, 1863.

The breadth of the proposed investigation is seen in the next action taken by the church:

Resolved: That we hereby earnestly request all those far and near who think they have any grounds of complaint against Elder White, all who have handed to him means that he has not appropriated as directed, all who think that he has wronged the aged, the widow, and the fatherless, or that he has not in all his dealings in temporal matters manifested the strictest integrity, probity, and uprightness, to immediately report their grievances, and the grounds upon which they base them, to Uriah Smith, chairman of the above named committee, that they may be received previous to the middle of May next.—Ibid.

Testimonials were solicited from all who had had dealings with James White since the beginning of his public ministry. These were to be laid before the coming General Conference session, called for late May.

In a last-page note in the next issue of the Review, White called attention to the action of the Battle Creek church. He stated:

The church deemed it necessary, for the good of the cause that there should be an investigation of our business career connected with the cause, and a printed report made. If flying reports be true, we should be separated from the cause. If an open and critical investigation proves them false, a printed report in the hands of the friends of the cause with which we have been connected may, in some instances at least, paralyze the tongue of slander.—Ibid., April 7, 1863.

He urged a prompt response “for the sake of the cause.”

The Call For A General Conference

The same issue of the Review carried the call for a meeting of the General Conference, at which it was hoped that church organization could be rounded out by binding the State conferences together in a unified body of believers across the land. The delegates were called to meet on Wednesday, May 20. The notice stated:

The several conference committees in the different States are requested to send delegates, or letters at their discretion. The brethren in those localities where there is no State conference can also be represented in the conference by delegates or letters.—Ibid.

On Wednesday afternoon, May 20, twenty ministers and laymen assembled in Battle Creek were ready to present their credentials. The conference moved into its work, in organizing the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, as noted elsewhere. (See Ellen G. White: The Early Years, 479–481.) The conference elected John Byington as president; Uriah Smith , secretary; and E.S. Walker, treasurer. James White was first unanimously elected to the presidency, but he thought it best to let another carry that responsibility. Byington would be joined by J.N. Andrews and G.W. Amadon, making an executive committee of three. The main thrust of the conference related to organization in both the State conferences and the General Conference.

Further Business of The Conference

The wording was brief, but the results were far-reaching. Actions were taken relating to the publication of charts for use in public proclamation of the message: a new prophetic chart, and one on the Ten Commandments (RH, May 26, 1863).

The General Conference took action regarding the survey of James White’s business integrity:

As no one had reported any grievances pertaining to the subject in hand, according to the request in the Review, the committee could only report that fact to the conference, and place in its hands the more than threescore and ten fervent testimonials which have been received on the other side, with the recommendation that, as it seemed that no one dared appear, to sustain the aforesaid reports, some action be taken by this conference to show the falsity of these reports, and vindicate before the world the character and course of Brother White. . . .

Resolved, That the committee employed by the Battle Creek church be empowered to act further in this matter in behalf of this conference, and prepare for publication a record of the action of the Battle Creek church relative to the accusations against Brother James White, and the substance of the responses received.—Ibid.

It was thought well to hold open the time for reports on White for another two months. The report finally appeared in the form of a forty-page pamphlet, which was circulated under the title “Vindication of the Business Career of Elder James White.” The introduction to the pamphlet, signed by the committee of three, declared that “no one has reported himself aggrieved.” It added:

His enemies have thus betrayed their utter want of confidence in the work they have been doing. Their silence has sealed their ignominy. Hereafter, in view of this fact, none will be willing to place themselves in the contemptible position of circulating such reports, except those whose enmity and prejudice overcome their convictions of right and reason,—Vindication of the Business Career of Elder James White, 3, 4.

The “Vindication” pamphlet consists of the signed statements of some seventy individuals who were well acquainted with White; many of these had had business dealings with him.

The conference was the first official General Conference session. It marked the completion of the organizational structure among Seventh-day Adventists. Attendance was such that meetings were held in the tent on the green across the street from the Review office. Uriah Smith, in his editorial report, declared:

Taking general view of this meeting as a religious gathering we hardly know what feature of the joyful occasion to notice first. We can say to the readers of the Review, think of everything good that has been written of every previous meeting, and apply it to this. All this would be true, and more than this.

Perhaps no previous meeting that we have ever enjoyed was characterized by such unity of feeling and harmony of sentiment. In all the important steps taken at this conference, in the organization of a General Conference, and the further perfecting of State conferences, defining the authority of each, and the important duties belonging to their various officers, there was not a dissenting voice, and we may reasonably doubt if there was even a dissenting thought. Such union, on such points, affords the strongest grounds of hope for the immediate advancement of the cause, and its future glorious prosperity and triumph.—RH, May 26, 1863.

This step in organization brought the church into a unified denominational structure in time to meet the emergencies of the military draft, and prepared to make advance steps as the health message came, through vision, two weeks after the session.

Taken from Ellen White: The Progressive Years, 30–33.

God turned the charges against James White into a blessing. This very situation showed the need for just such a conference. It seems that whenever the cause of God is marked with the promise of progress, the enemy of truth is on the ground to contend every inch of advance. Thus it was in the days of Moses, Jesus, Paul and Martin Luther.

Today the Lord can turn the apparent troubles in God’s work into blessings if we stay humble and obedient. We must watch and pray and keep our garments unspotted from the prevailing iniquity around us. Our lips must be firmly sealed against idle words and evil speaking. Otherwise, we could innocently fall into Satan’s snares and unknowingly be carrying out his plans. Thus it was with the disciples of John the Baptist.

John the Baptist lived a very austere life. The Pharisees secretly hated him. They “had not accepted the mission of the Baptist. They had pointed in scorn to his abstemious life, his simple habits, his coarse garments, and had declared him a fanatic. Because he denounced their hypocrisy, they had resisted his words, and had tried to stir up the people against him. The Spirit of God moved upon the hearts of these scorners, convicting them of sin; but they had rejected the counsel of God, and had declared that John was possessed of a devil . . . Although they had opposed the mission of the Baptist, they were now ready to court the friendship of his disciples, hoping to secure their co-operation against Jesus . . . They contrasted the austere piety of the Baptist with the course of Jesus in feasting with publicans and sinners . . . The disciples of John had not a clear understanding of Christ’s work; they thought there might be some foundation for the charges of the Pharisees.” Desire of Ages, 275, 276.

These poor men, without knowing what they were doing played into the hands of the Pharisees, who were Christ’s bitterest enemies. And they came and questioned Jesus about why He and His disciples did not fast as often as they and the Pharisees did. You can read the whole story in Desire of Ages, 272–280.

This accusing spirit repeats itself over and over again in the work of God. James White contended with it all his life, not only from his enemies, but often from his “best” of friends. Rumors are still floating around today of what a hard man he was. One wonders how many of those are founded upon even a shred of truth! But we can be sure, whatever is said about him, that God accepted his labors. Ellen White was shown in vision that he will be saved. We know that God’s grace was sufficient for him and that his weakness was submitted to God’s strength. “For consider Him that endured such contradiction of sinners against Himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.” Hebrews 12:3.

The End

by Gwen Reeves