![]() ![]() We will also consider whether there are evident linkages between reasons for exit and a rationale for the kind of person selected as the new appointee. As the church approaches another important session in 2022, it may also be helpful to understand what patterns in presidential tenure are evident, what commonalities are to be observed in reasons for exiting the office, such as health or age, and which incumbents desired to be returned to office but were not reelected. This article explores the particular circumstances surrounding the exit from office of these two presidents and then broadens in scope to survey the circumstances involved in the exit of the other occupants of the office of General Conference president since it was established in 1863. He had become too rigidly orthodox and his approach to the defense of orthodoxy posed a real threat to the unity of the church. Rather he was forced out because of ill-health brought on by an excess of orthodoxy. In 1888, George Butler also exited the office in very uncomfortable and undignified circumstances at another highly contentious session, but not because he was perceived to be unorthodox. 2ĭaniells’s uncomfortable and contentious exit from the General Conference presidency was not unique. The criticism scarred him badly and spoiled his reputation, at least among conservatives. In Ben MacArthur’s assessment, the charges of heterodoxy and lack of confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy, stoked by deep fears of “higher criticism” among Adventist conservatives, prevented Daniells from becoming a truly transformational leader. But the political campaign against him certainly created a highly charged environment that heavily influenced the electoral process and provided the bitter context for a very undignified exit for the sixty-four-year-old president. He had, after all, been in office 21 years. ![]() The ugly propaganda and the factionalism that produced it, fanned by the rising winds of a newly energized fundamentalism in the church, may not ultimately have been the only reason Daniells was not reelected in 1922. “You more than any other one man are responsible,” fumed Judson Washburn. Because Daniells had led out in the conference and was the responsible administrator, he became the primary target of the fundamentalist anger. Even so, reports of the progressive ideas that had been aired had leaked out and damaging rumors had circulated. Held in the summer of 1919, the Bible Conference had involved many Bible and history teachers in the discussion of topics at times considered so sensitive that the transcripts of the discussions had been securely stored in a General Conference vault. 1 The literature was distributed to every delegate attending the San Francisco session and to many besides. The propaganda pamphlets, authored by conservative evangelist Judson Washburn and biblical inerrantist, linotype operator, Claude Holmes, alleged that the General Conference leadership had become heretical and constituted the “Omega” of apostasy. His role in the 1919 Bible Conference had become a major reason for deep discontent among angry fundamentalists in the church. It was clear from the highly defamatory propaganda literature circulating around many Adventist churches in the lead up to the General Conference Session of May 1922 that President Arthur G. Originally published in 2019 to give historical context as the next General Conference Session approached, it is republished here as the twice-delayed 2022 Session is now imminent. ![]() Gilbert Valentine explores the particular circumstances surrounding the exit from office of General Conference presidents Daniells and Butler, and then surveys the circumstances involved in the exit of the other occupants of the office of GC president since it was established in 1863. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |