A Short History of the Advent Christian Search for Structure

This article builds on the previously published article,
“The Advent Christian Denomination Needs to be Restructured” which can be read here.

Two things must be noted upfront.

1) I am only a student of history, not a historian. That said, even mere students of Advent Christian history are rare these days and so I venture to offer what I have learned.

2) Because this is a blog post and not a book, I will use broad strokes in relating the formation of our denominational structure. I will assume the audience has at least a basic acquaintance with the preceding Millerite movement from which we emerged. I am indebted to A.C. Johnson’s history, Clyde Hewitt’s historical series (must have for any AC library), and the research of Bruce Jones in offering this brief characterization of our denomination’s formation. I will selectively offer citation of these as needed, but you can trust they are behind other details and opinions which go without citation.

Let us begin.

What You Must Understand

You can only understand the Advent Christian denomination if you understand that it was a movement before it was a denomination. The Second Advent movement splintered after the Great Disappointment. Advent Christians found themselves on an island; they could not agree with all of the conclusions of Seventh-Day Adventists and their conditionalism divorced them from the Evangelical Adventists. These divisions contributed to their becoming a denomination in 1860.

But Advent Christians remained more movement minded than church minded when they formed the (Advent) Christian Association in Providence, RI of that year. You could say they remained a movement despite being a denomination. This can be seen in how they prioritized publishing above the basic needs of the local church. The object of the association related in A.C Johnson’s history was as follows:

The object of the association was said to be “The promulgation of Bible truth and the promotion of vital piety,” and this object was to be attained “by the following modes:” 1. By the formation of a Christian Publication Society, for the issue of books, tracts and periodicals. 2. By the organization of churches, and other means of preaching the Gospel. 3 By the recognition and support of an efficient Gospel ministry. (Johnson, p.270)

You can only understand the Advent Christian denomination if you understand that it was a movement that formed a denomination to advance its publication interests as a movement. They had a message to spread that I have detailed in an article found here. The Advent Christian Publication Society wielded more power and influence than the ACA itself. The education of pastors, the formation of ecclesial structures, simply could not get the time of the day - they believed the day of Christ’s return was chronologically imminent. This and the associated adventual truths demanded publication above all else. No doubt, the American Advent Mission Society and other such mission societies (think foreign and domestic evangelists) were of great importance, but this likewise offered little conscious contribution to our ecclesial formation.

Advent Christians have been in an existential tug of war ever since, having all the priorities of a movement while having all the responsibilities of a denomination. We now bear the cost of a struggle that has spanned 173 years.

The Man in Search of a Suit

The Advent Christian denomination was not born with the form it has today. Before it was officially formed in 1860, there were a number of local Advent Christian conferences. Johnson reports that within the Maine State Conference there were even more local district conferences within that conference. (Johnson, p.220)

Conferences on the whole were formed to promote fellowship and introduce some order. Order included making sure circuit-riding preachers didn’t show up at the same church on the same Sunday (most churches didn’t have their own pastors or buildings). According to I.C. Wellcome, order also included ending a state of affairs that invited “wild and destructive, speculative, new notions to produce confusion and discord among the infant churches and societies, and to bring discredit and disgrace upon the truth and those who taught it .”(Hewitt, Devotion & Development, p. 177) Conferences could endorse ministers and they could condemn ministers, offering some guidance and protection to congregations.

Even after the Advent Christian Association was formed, these conferences remained the substance of the denominational structure until the end of the 1800s. Efforts at national coordination were attempted. The Declaration of Principles was first produced in 1881, being adopted by both Advent Christians in the East and the West (Midwest). They agreed to meet together in general conference annually, alternating between East and West, each having their own board, aspiring to consolidate their ministry interests.

Nothing much resulted from this. The Advent Christian Publication Society continued to be predominant (E.A. Stockman calls it “the highest body among us”) and it separately incorporated in 1889. (D&D, p.197) The ACA remained a mere auxiliary to the publications, addressing issues a paper could not and providing some fellowship among Advent Christians . Nevertheless, Advent Christians were searching for denominational structure. Like a man of unusual stature and size, they were struggling to find a suit fit for them.

It is difficult to discover the origins of regions (Hewitt surprisingly offers little comment on this), but it seems they began to emerge at the end of the 19th century (e.g. SACA is formed in 1898). These too seem to run parallel with publications, emerging when a region established a paper of its own. The geographical limitations of distribution doubled down on a sense of parochial priorities which already would have been present because of limited transportation.

Altogether, the basic form of the denomination did not come together under any grand design. It was sewn together to meet immediate needs, the interests of a paper-obsessed movement, and thus emerged as a product of its time. As Advent Christians entered the 20th century and the Second Advent movement began to wane, they began to feel the full weight of their structural weakness. So what do you do when you have an ill-fitted suit? You take it to the tailor.

The Tailor Generation

The denominational structure we have today fully emerged in the years following World War II. Before this, there was no ACGC headquarters, no sustained national staff, nor even regional superintendents. All of this only came into being in the wake of the failed Forward Movement (1920-1926), a campaign to raise funds for a national ministry that fell well short of its goals.

Thereafter, Advent Christians overcame their prior history by pulling together to transform the face of the denomination. Between 1942 and 1975, leaders including Clarence Hewitt, Lee Baker, Howard Shaw, E.K. Gedney, and Adrian Shepard oversaw this effort from their various positions in the denomination. The ministry and status of regional superintendents gained greater definition, ACGC established a central headquarters in Charlotte (1969), and the budget and ministries of the denomination were united and brought together at this new HQ (1969-1978). As alluded to previously, publications and missions societies existed and operated apart from ACGC – there simply was no meaningful national ministry. Considering all the various (even competing?) interests at play, it was a monumental feat that these leaders were able to unite these ministries and their funding.

The best primary source material I have been able to access that covers part of this period is the quarterly bulletin, Advent Christian Advance (1942-1962). From the 593 pages available to me, I have pulled 19 particularly relevant pages that you can view here. In the January 1945 issue of the ACA, Clarence Kirby provides insight into the trouble leaders perceived at that time:

“Too much machinery” has been the feeling of many of us for some time when thinking of the numerous organizations in our body. For a couple of years some of us in the South have been talking of consolidating our work. We realized the need of the organizations in the beginning, but felt that better work could be done with less machinery [...] Distances in our body make it imperative that we have fewer delegate bodies for the control of what is of interest to all of us. Why make it necessary' to send delegates, or be without representation, to so many corporations? Much more interest would be manifest in the General Conference if all national institutions were controlled by it. Naturally a majority of the members of the boards would of necessity live in the area adjacent to the institution controlled. Let us cut the machinery and do more business for the Lord. (p. 3, Jan. 1945, ACA)

It would appear that United Ministries went far in addressing these concerns. Prior to this being realized, Adrian Shepard (former ACGC Executive Director) said,

Why reorganize? I believe there were at least a few serious thinkers among us who believe that such a move would help us to reflect a little more the body of Christ as portrayed in Scripture. Could it be that a combination of factors led or drove us into reorganization? Changing societies bent toward consolidation – seeking to survive at whatever the cost – or the noble desire to be more like a body as Scripture urges. (p. 327, Clyde Hewitt, Devotion & Development)

Wider study makes it clear that there was more on the minds of these leaders than mere efficiency. There was significant contemplation about the adequacy of the denomination’s model of governance. Reflecting on “Denominational Problems” in October 1945, then Executive Secretary Clarence Hewitt shared the following thoughts with Advent Christians:

The fact is that both our ministers and our churches need a closer degree of supervision than we have hitherto felt that as a congregational body we could give them. The trouble is not that we are a congregational body that that we have obeyed the letter of Congregationalism rather than the spirit of it. We have been lacking in imagination, and have failed to understand the elasticity of the congregational system[...]

Perhaps, however, the need is not for special supervision in certain crises to save churches, but for a form of continuous supervision in order to avoid such crisis. Quite possibly—as some writers in our papers have suggested—we would profit by a full- fledged episcopal system like that of Methodists and Evangelicals. But there is little use speculating along that line because there, is little likelihood that we will ever have it. We are congregationalists, and we are going to remain congregationalists. But there is one thing we can do. We can become better congregationalists, —as good as the Congregationalists themselves. Like them we can take advantage of the elasticity of the congregational principle, we can expand our system of congregational government so as to include within its framework joint church—denominational responsibility in the matter of church—pastor relationships, together with a recognition of denominational responsibility for the welfare of the local church when it is threatened by serious difficulty and that it may rightfully exercise supervision at that point.  This may be a wild dream. But I hope the time will come—and soon—when we shall adopt the feature of the state or area superintendency that is working so well for the Congregational-Christian churches, in that our regional superintendents will be recognized as sustaining a definite advisory-supervisory relationship to the churches of their region. (pp. 4, 6 Oct. 1945, ACA)

Six months later, President Lee Baker echoed the same sentiment in his address to the biennial delegate body:

All of our denominational interests and endeavors should head up in the Advent Christian General Conference of America. In the matter of church-pastor relations a swing toward some more episcopal form of government would help our morale. (p. 12 July 1946, ACA)

It is true that the growing ministry of regional superintendents went some way in meeting the desires expressed here, but later developments make clear that something more was desired. At the 1958 Biennial, the following motion was passed:

Voted, that, the Executive Committee make a study of procedures for establishing some adaptation of a Presbytery-type government for our denomination, whereby the forward progress of the denomination as a group may he implemented by making it possible to focus its resources on common objectives, and whereby effective control over aberrant behavior on the part of ministers, churches and Conferences with respect to denominational standards and loyalty may be attained. This study is to be embodied in recommendations to be submitted to the Conferences and churches during the second year of the biennium for their consideration, with the prospect of leading to the adoption of some such agreed- upon proposal at the next General Conference.
(pp. 5-6 July 1958, ACA)

Commenting on this study in 1960, J. Howard Shaw explains what brought it about: “Many Advent Christians are coming to feel that a key factor in our greater growth is a stronger and better co-ordinated denominational organization.” (p. 4, April 1960, ACA) In Devotion & Development, Clyde Hewitt recounts with illuminating detail what followed (pp. 297-328). At the 1958 Biennium, a proposal was adopted to form a committee that would consider the sort of restructuring suggested above. The proposal the committee produced can be viewed here as found in D&D. As Hewitt notes in his annotations, the proposal called for a significant exercise of authority by higher denominational bodies that is not currently present. This proposal was presented in 1960 but was not adopted.

Even so, the matter continue to be pressed in 1962 and so another committee was formed to “make a thorough study of the purposes and objectives of the Advent Christian Denomination, preparing an adequate working philosophy to encompass the church, the conference, the region, the cooperating societies and the general conference.”(D&D, p. 300) Hewitt indicates that this committee fell off the map, the only record of its work being an undisclosed report that was presented to the Executive Committee on June 10, 1965. In 1968, another committee was formed “to further study the commission form of denominational government, and also consider the merits of a modified Presbyterian form of government.”(D&D p. 302) After some additional delay for “further study,” this committee eventually presented their proposal in 1974 which produced United Ministries. Hewitt notes that the United Ministries model bears some resemblance to the commission model which organizes ministry under various directors.(p.302)

Coming Up Short-Sleeved

 This generation of tailors had found themselves a suit and hemmed it to the Advent Christian body - but had they finished the job? In my opinion, there is no doubt that their efforts preserved the denomination. Without United Ministries, it is difficult to imagine the denomination in existence today. Nevertheless, the various quotes and committees cited above suggest that something more was desired in reconsidering the structure of denomination. These leaders may have brought the sleeve quite far down the arm, but by their own standards it does not appear that they brought it to the wrist.

Leading up to 1974, Hewitt reports that there had been suggestions that the denomination join the Church of the Brethren or adopt a form of presybterian government. In reference to this, he quotes Lee Welkley (an observer of these events) as saying, “It is my opinion that strong advocates of the congregational form of government may in some way have been responding to those two recommendations by hoping that the reorganization plan would permanently postpone the other two.”(D&D, p.325) For his own part, Hewitt says in his postlude, “We have talked about modifying our traditional congregational government by borrowing from the Presbyterian experience or going to a commission form of organization. I am sorry we voted to do neither.” He continues by suggesting the formation of a committee to consider these possibilities, welcoming difficult conversations. He admits, “Obviously, this is a drastic proposal not likely to appeal to the faint of heart. But I am faint-hearted enough not to want to face the specter of continuing decline toward denominational nonexistence.” (pp.372-373)

 More recently, Bruce Jones presented a report to denominational leaders in 2009 analyzing our structure in a comprehensive fashion. The short version of this can be viewed here. The heading reads as follows:

The organizational factors that are causing the decline of the Advent Christian Church are largely a result of the limited and conflicted way in which the organizational model of the denomination was forged. A reversal of this decline may be possible by developing a full theology of biblical organization (paradigm of a desired future state), and using consulting processes to create a strategic roadmap towards implementing the desired state.

Unfortunately, there appears to have been little response to Jones’s work. At the 2014 Triennial, a proposal was adopted to form a committee to review church polity. My understanding is that while the committee was formed and had an initial meeting, it has not continued to meet and consequently has nothing to present.

What Now?

In my previous article, I reported on the unsustainable stress our structure is putting upon our pastors and churches, especially as the numbers of both continue to decline. From our history, we learn that we have been in a long struggle to form our denominational structure and identity. Advent Christian leaders of the post-World War II era understood that the practices of that time were unsustainable, that major changes were in order, and so they took responsibility and acted. They did not bow before any sacred cows – they knew their future was at stake. We now find ourselves in a moment in which our future is at stake. Will we, like them, take responsibility and act?

We have also learned that the denominational leaders of that era understood the weakness of our structure. One does not need to approve of an episcopal or presbyterian model of government to agree with the desire for real order that they felt was needed. What stands out in the denied 1960 proposal is the authority, uniformity, and standards that these visionary leaders believed was required. Could this shortcoming be contributing to our flailing numbers? I think it could. If the denominational structure lacks cohesion, if lines of authority are confused and even disregarded, it should be no surprise that we struggle to take united action in collectively pursuing any strategic plans. Consequently, it would be no surprise that we struggle to raise up pastoral leadership, retain would-be pastors, and recruit outsiders to our ministry. We have a structure that offers inadequate support, maintains few standards, and which makes no demands. No one would expect a turnaround in church decline when we lack the leaders and wherewithal to effectively come alongside churches and intervene as necessary.

Recalling in similar fashion what was stated earlier – we have all the responsibilities of a denomination but operate with all the weaknesses of a movement. Collective action perilously depends upon the emergence of an Advent Christian Moses, an inspirational leader to persuade the masses. What we need is an ecclesial structure organized top to bottom for advancing the Gospel commission in all seasons, a structure not dependent on the fleeting power of personality.

The story of the Advent Christian church will be decided by this generation. Shall we complete the work of our forefathers by resolving our perennial structural weaknesses, or will we fail to rise to the task? I do hope we will stand to meet the challenge of this hour. In my next article (third and final), I will put forward some possibilities for how we might do just that. For now, I invite you to ponder these things in the spirit of A.C. Johnson as he concluded his work on Advent Christian history:

The spirit of the earliest Adventists was, ‘The Lord is coming, let us plan great things; let us do great things.’ In that purpose they gave themselves to the work to the utmost. This is the true spirit; may it fall on all our people in this momentous time. – A.C. Johnson

NEXT - Models for Restructuring the Advent Christian Denomination