Growing Healthy Churches? Part 1
A short summary of the “Growing Healthy Churches” (GHC) method of Paul D. Borden from an Adventist perspective
Presenter: Tim Matsis
Location: Internet
Delivery: 2009-04-23 15:00Z
Publication: GreatControversy.org 2009-04-23 15:00Z
Type: Article
URL: http://greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/matt-ghc1.php
This article examines the Growing Healthy Churches (“GHC”) initiative from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective. GHC is the work of Baptist minister Dr Paul Borden. The following section contains a short summary of GHC and how, in the author’s experience, it has been implemented in an Adventist context. It will be followed by a more detailed analysis of GHC in comparison with accepted Adventist ideology.
What is GHC?
GHC is a set of processes whereby a leader is enabled to convince a congregation that they can achieve a utopia of “growth” and “health” in their organisation by undertaking a reorganisation.
GHC is premised on the notion that the key measure of success in a church is “growth”, meaning growth in church attendance and growth in financial contributions. “Health”, the other catchword in its title, is essentially a repetition of the ideals of increased attendance and financial giving. As Dr Borden says, “all healthy churches grow”.
A GHC “intervention” typically targets churches where there are some problems, although any church can be used if a pretext for implementing the programme can be established. In most cases, a dissatisfaction with the status quo is sufficient pretext. GHC is presented as the answer to whatever problem exists.
What may happen if my church adopts GHC?
A GHC reorganisation may involve:
A change in pastor. For example, if the pastor is not in favour of GHC, he may be replaced.
A change in power. For example, if the pastor’s job is to lead the church, more power must be given to the pastor to spend, to appoint and remove church officers and to determine other aspects of church operations.
A change in church structures. For example, to give the pastor more power there may be a need to do away with or modify the rules for nominating committees or regular business meetings. To give the local church more power in relation to the denomination, there may even be an attempt to establish the local church as a separate incorporated entity. The local church may adopt its own “bylaws” and vote to do away with all or some of the Church Manual. Tools such as the Church Manual are thought to restrain the pastor’s authority and the local church’s plans.
A change in church ideology. For example, to change the way people engage in church activities there is a need to change the way church members think about God, the pastor and the relative values they have. Is the pastor a “shepherd” or a “leader”? Is God “weak” or “strong”, a lion or a lamb? What is more important “faithfulness” or “fruitfulness” (increased baptisms and financial contributions)? If a church values “faithfulness” but is not growing fast enough, then they need to be re-educated to value “fruitfulness”. If a church is faithfully presenting the message but people are not joining then we need to abandon “culturally irrelevant” methods and use the ones that “work”. There may be changes in church sermons, music, or buildings. Change may also be achieved through training, the use of surveys, changes in titles and terms used in church work (e.g. “pastor”, or “leader”?), reading books by Adventist or non-Adventist authors and silencing existing personnel who do not support the changes.
A change in local church leadership. For example, if existing leaders are not fully supportive of changes that the pastor wants to implement, whether this is because of personality differences or because of biblical convictions, those leaders need to be removed to enable the pastor to “lead”.
A change in financial priorities. For example, it is proposed that the church does not exist to serve the denomination, therefore money for the worldwide work of the church may need to be kept in house to fulfil the “vision” of the local church.
A change in denominational loyalty. For example, in addition to shelving parts of the Church Manual, loyalty to the denomination and to distinctive beliefs is played down so that the local church can feel comfortable with the “vision” it has created for itself. Also, this allows members to be more open minded to non-Adventist teachers who have ideas the pastor wants to implement.
What methodology might be used to bring about these changes?
In order to achieve the above changes the following means may be employed:
Appoint a pastor who is in favour of GHC. GHC is leader-centred and therefore finding a pastor who will carry out the plan is essential. In an Adventist context, if the Conference leadership is behind GHC they may try to replace your pastor if they think your church membership is open to implementing the programme.
Survey the local leaders. Find out who is in favour of change and who isn’t, who will support the pastor with the new direction and who won’t. Encourage them to join in but let them know that if they don’t, their leadership future with the church will need to be reviewed.
Create chaos in a church. This is a major part of the plan. Emotional imbalance and crises are strong fuel for bringing about change. If a church can be frightened by threats of losing their pastor, public opinion surveys, declining membership, financial ruin or just plain lack of unity, they will be prepared to look for a solution. People who have worked together in a church for years will not be prepared to take decisive steps against their “family” members in church leadership unless they have a strong incentive to do so. Creating “emotional imbalance” and uncertainty provides this fuel. In the experience of the writer, introducing suspect forms of worship in the church can help to create this uncertainty and division.
Tell stories. Leaders tell stories to sell the “dream”. The churches that adopt GHC have good stories, the ones who stick with the status quo, have bad stories. Create a picture in the minds of church members that says they must chose GHC or else their church will die.
Bring in experts. “Men in black” carry significant weight, particularly with Adventists. A Conference president, a Union president, pastors generally, can all influence a church heavily. Unless a church is united in its views and biblically literate, the uncertainty created will lead the average church member to seek security with those in authority.
Get commitment. A series of business meetings may be held, where people are asked to vote on the programme and also to change leadership in the church. The church may be asked to pay a fee to the Conference to ensure their commitment to the GHC restructure. Leaders taking office may be asked to sign a pledge of loyalty to the pastor and/or GHC.
What will happen after GHC has been implemented?
Once the church has voted to adopt GHC, it is a matter of keeping the momentum going so that those on board will continue to believe and act in harmony with the plan by undertaking the required restructuring. This is done by giving positive reports, rewarding the “in group” with public praise and involvement in church life. As numbers have become the key measure of success, and having probably created some turmoil to get this far, the “in group” have likely become fairly committed. The pastor will have to hold them together by keeping the “vision” in front of them and reminding them of the consequences of going back. Those in the “out group” are generally excluded from church life and it is hoped that they will leave and find another church which suits them.
Someone promoting the programme, may be tempted to assure you that, even though there are some objectionable features to GHC, they will only be taking the good parts while leaving the nasty bits. However, by now, you will have seen that the plan relies on aggressive and decisive measures being taken to achieve real “change”. Consequently, the plan suffers from the equivalent of what creationists call “irreducible complexity”. To remove any part of the plan allows dissenting voices to re-emerge, the plan could be derailed, and the church may revert to what it knows—namely, Adventism. This is particularly true in regard to the governance structure of the church, as Borden himself says:
...failure to adopt a new structure will eventually stifle the implementation of a new mission and vision.
Note this also, that if you are promised that if the church doesn’t like it, they can go back to a traditional model after a period of time—this is merely another selling tactic to get your church to sign up. A bit like buying on credit. Even if the leader is sincere, it is possible that things will change so radically under GHC that they can never be reversed. Your church may be demolished and relocated, the local community may gain a negative view of the church and relationships may become so soured with former church members that, even if there is deep and sincere repentance, the church’s work may be seriously retarded and members may be lost from the church permanently.
Conclusion
There are essentially two problems with GHC. The first is that it is unbiblical and the second is that it is against the Adventist rules of operation contained in the Church Manual. Both flaws may be effectively exposed in the local church because in an Adventist context, the adoption of the GHC programme is dependent upon churches being convinced that the plan is both sound and advantageous to the church. It cannot be imposed by a Conference.
However, even after adoption, the implementation of GHC is restrained by the binding and detailed procedures contained in the Church Manual. This will set the church at odds with the denomination at large. Like all rules, however, there must be a willingness to enforce them and if GHC is being promoted at a Conference level, or in some cases, at Union level, you will need to seek assistance from the Division or General Conference.
Above all else—pray. “He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might He increaseth strength” (Isaiah 40:29). God has both you and His church under His watching care.
Our next part will offer a more detailed analysis citing material from Dr Borden’s book, Hit the Bullseye, contrasting that with Adventist polity.
Endnotes
Paul D. Borden, Hit the Bullseye—How Denominations Can Aim the Congregation at the Mission Field, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2003), p. 16.
Ibid., p. 126. GCO
© 2009 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.
Tim Matsis is a lawyer who lectures in law, leadership and business at the Southern Institute of Technology in Invercargill, New Zealand. In addition to serving in his local church, he has also being involved as a lay member at Conference and Division level. He is currently doing further study in the field of Theology and Ministry. He is married to Leslea and has a two year old son named Samuel.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 11
The nominating committee chosen to select officers for the 2008-2009 officer cycle met for the first time on Jan. 13, 2008. The committee’s activity had been delayed first by the Borden Report, and later by the personal schedule of its chairman. (It is worth noting that rather than asking the previous officers to continue in their posts until replacements were elected, Pastor DeSilva instead declared that as of Dec. 31, 2007 we had no officers and no board until the nominating committee completed its work.) At this first meeting a new organizational chart was presented to the members, along with lists of the duties of the two new boards.
Pastor DeSilva explained the new chart, read through the duty lists, and explained the requirements for membership in the two boards. We were informed that the pastors’ immediate family members and the paid office staff were not eligible to be elected to any position. We were further informed that no one could be elected to both the Church Ministries Board and the Support and Accountability Board. Also, none of the immediate family of members of either board could be elected to the other board. The stated reason for this was so that the Accountability Board would be able to be impartial in its monitoring and evaluation.
The nominating committee then jumped right in to considering candidates for the various positions. For each position Pastor DeSilva had someone specific in mind. He would speak warmly of his candidate and disparagingly of the others. Everything from personal grooming to newness in the congregation (though that wasn’t a problem if it was his candidate) to having objected to the change in structure was brought up under the guise of candid evaluation in order to discourage votes for alternate candidates.
When the name of a particularly vocal opponent of the structural change was brought up as a potential department head Pastor DeSilva flat out said that in light of recent events he simply could not work with that person. At that point the secretary of the committee spoke up to caution against excluding people just because they happen to disagree with you and thereby losing valuable perspectives. Pastor DeSilva, not content to let the matter rest, jumped back in to the discussion. In his best alter-call oratory style he made an impassioned speech about how there was a difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable. He further declared that there were a number of people who had recently revealed themselves as disagreeable people with whom he simply was unable to work. (Never mind that he had been working with these people beautifully for the better part of eleven years and it wasn’t until they disagreed with him that they became disagreeable.) There was a palpable change in the atmosphere of the room. Moments before when the secretary had been speaking the committee had been relaxed and smiling, nodding their agreement with the secretary’s statement. After Pastor DeSilva’s interjection that good feeling was gone—replaced by an uncertainty and discomfort at his “my way or the highway” attitude.
Next: A Slip of the Lip
Religious
Pastor DeSilva explained the new chart, read through the duty lists, and explained the requirements for membership in the two boards. We were informed that the pastors’ immediate family members and the paid office staff were not eligible to be elected to any position. We were further informed that no one could be elected to both the Church Ministries Board and the Support and Accountability Board. Also, none of the immediate family of members of either board could be elected to the other board. The stated reason for this was so that the Accountability Board would be able to be impartial in its monitoring and evaluation.The nominating committee then jumped right in to considering candidates for the various positions. For each position Pastor DeSilva had someone specific in mind. He would speak warmly of his candidate and disparagingly of the others. Everything from personal grooming to newness in the congregation (though that wasn’t a problem if it was his candidate) to having objected to the change in structure was brought up under the guise of candid evaluation in order to discourage votes for alternate candidates.
When the name of a particularly vocal opponent of the structural change was brought up as a potential department head Pastor DeSilva flat out said that in light of recent events he simply could not work with that person. At that point the secretary of the committee spoke up to caution against excluding people just because they happen to disagree with you and thereby losing valuable perspectives. Pastor DeSilva, not content to let the matter rest, jumped back in to the discussion. In his best alter-call oratory style he made an impassioned speech about how there was a difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable. He further declared that there were a number of people who had recently revealed themselves as disagreeable people with whom he simply was unable to work. (Never mind that he had been working with these people beautifully for the better part of eleven years and it wasn’t until they disagreed with him that they became disagreeable.) There was a palpable change in the atmosphere of the room. Moments before when the secretary had been speaking the committee had been relaxed and smiling, nodding their agreement with the secretary’s statement. After Pastor DeSilva’s interjection that good feeling was gone—replaced by an uncertainty and discomfort at his “my way or the highway” attitude.
Next: A Slip of the Lip
Religious
Friday, April 24, 2009
Appearances: Obedience is Better than "The Healthy Church Initiative"
No doubt you are familiar with the story in the Bible about Saul and the Amalekites (I Samuel 15: 2 - 35). God, through Samuel, told Saul to go to Amalek and kill everyone and everything. Saul was under direct orders from God not to spare any living thing. Seems pretty simple. Definitely straighforward. Nothing to really think about. Step 1: Go to Amalek. Step 2: Find everything that is living. Step 3: Fix it so it's not.
However Saul decided to save Agag, the Amalekite King, and all the "Grade A" cattle, sheep, oxen, etc. Saul, and those that empowered him to make this choice, were (possibly) thinking, "Hey listen, we probably should make a sacrifice to God when we get back, right? Okay fine, why don't we take their best cattle and livestock, and sacrifice that? C'mon, guys! This is genius! We save our stuff, God gets His sacrifice, and in the end everything gets destroyed, just like we were ordered. I mean, come right down to it, does God really care how we get the job done, as long as we do it? It's a "win-win" for everyone...except the Amalekites!" I can only imagine the laughter. Of course, this "reasoning" seemed right in Saul's eyes. So King Saul and the rest of the desert trek crew head back home, to be greeted by the news from Samuel of God's anger and displeasure.
"...Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to harken than the fat of rams."
Fast forward a few thousand years to the founding and organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. According to Ellen G. White, God was the Founder of this Faith, and the early Adventist pioneers came up with a organizational structure, as detailed in the Church Manual, came after long periods of fasting, sleepless nights, and endless prayer. Ellen White cautioned that the development of our organizational structure was guided by the Holy Spirit. She admonished that we tamper with this structure at our own peril. If the Book of Samuel is any indication, it would be reasonable to assume that following His direction in the form of the Church Manual is one of many situations in which God wants our obedience.
But instead, what do we have today in the 21st Century? Seventh-day Adventists, both clergy and laity, who look to Baptist and Pentacostal "mega-churches" and covet their "successes." Not success as defined by searching the Scriptures, or success in sharing in Third Angel's message, or success in telling people what the Bible says about the imminent return of Jesus, but success measured in terms of big buildings, and big congregations, and big money. What a pity that these people seem to forget that if we are doing God's will, the need for anything would be the least of our worries.
To some small degree, I can actually feel for the people pushing the "Healthy Church Initiative." It's been more than a century and a half since the beginning of the Advent movement. We believe that we are God's remnant Church. And yet we look at other faiths, other belief systems both in and out of Christendom, and see huge growth. The Crystal Cathedral. The Saddleback Church. Joel Olsteen. T. D. Jakes.
Some Adventist pastors, and laity, seem to be thinking, "These ministries have huge followings. If we are the Remnant Church, why aren't we growing like they are? Hey! I have an idea. We're smart people, why don't we copy everything the 'Church Growth Movement' people do? We know the basics already. We can either go back to the 1950s and study the original work by Donald McGavran, or we can study modern McGavran incarnations like 'The Purpose Driven Church.' That part would be easy enough since they even host websites like 'Pastors.com' and/or 'Sermons.com.'" Another party to the conversation could have said,"Well if we are going to go that route, then why don't we just hire a church growth consultant? C'mon, it's not like we don't have a budget line item for 'Evangelism.' Let's hire some guy to 're-brand' us. We'll bring in some drums, electric guitars, and get everyone up on their feet screaming and shouting! In fact, if we run the numbers, I'll bet we'll find we can save a ton of cash by not buying hymnals. Who really wants to take the time and think about what hymns are trying say? The concept of hymns as 'prayers in song' is old fashioned, anyway. We can even give it a cool name like the Healthy Church Initiative!" A third member to this conservation could have added," You know guys, there's another way to look at as well, just between us. There's a cost benefit analysis piece the entire church is missing. The percentage of tithes and offerings are down. We have renovations a lot of us would like to see made to the Conference headquarters. Then we have our salaries, and the large number of our employees that are baby boomers that will be retiring soon. Add all that to increased energy costs and other sundries. We need cash. One way to do it is to grow churches. Do the math. Even if we get a portion of new members to pay consistent tithes and offerings, we'll be in a better position financially. Why in some of the so-called 'Mega-Churches,' they manage their tithes and offerings by telling parishioners that God won't bless them, or even answer their prayers unless they give generously to their churches. We not only can do this, we have to do this." Yet another "in-group" member no doubt said, "You know there are going to be a few members, and maybe even a few pastors that are going to push back on this. From what I've read, in order to make these 'Purpose Driven' churches work in terms of reaching out to non-SDAs, we have to 'calm down' preaching about some of our doctrines. We can't talk about Hell, or the 'Time of Trouble' because it will scare people. If we talk about Ellen G. White, they'll thing we're nuts. In fact we can't talk about sin, because we'll be called 'judgmental' or 'haters.' The big problem will be that we will have to change the way our Church is organized and the way decisions are made. Some members are bound to object." To which a senior in-group member probably said something like, "Let them. This is serious business. We have to grow our churches. We can't get the clergy or the laity to commit to actual Bible training so they can go out and teach their neighbors, and we aren't doing in-gathering anymore. From what I've read, there are some pretty effective tactics we can use to shut down any members that don't want to get with the program. We're pastors, after all. Who's running this church anyway? Us or them? Besides, we know better. In the end, we'll increase tithes, we can be more competitive and more main-stream, and we can even get new members. It will be a win-win for everyone."
The problem with this reasoning starts with the question, "Who's running this Church, anyway." The right and only answer is God. Case closed. The Church is the bride of Christ. In the meantime, we are supposed to serve, help, and love another, both inside and outside the Church. We are supposed to both prepare ourselves for His return and and tell others to prepare as well. But that message is lost in the rush to create an "Adventist Clone" of the Purpose Driven Church, or a Saddleback Church, or any one of the several nome-de-plumes for an organization run by a clergy that call the SDA Manual guidelines, and demands the laity "submit to their authority."
Shame. Shame on any SDA clergy anywhere in the world for pushing a system that is contrary to Protestant and SDA core beliefs. Shame on any laity blindly following confeence or pastoral "leadership" that would take us in a direction contrary to God's plan for our Church.. There's wrong, and then there's wrong, and then there's this.
God gave us brains and intelligence so that we might heed the admonition of Isiah 1:18, " Come now, and let us reason together." The key word here is reason. Those who have studied the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, have enough information to know that what Bill Miller and many Potomac Conference pastors are doing is wrong.
But it doesn't stop there. There are books and articles by by Jay Galimore, and Richard O'Ffill, and Thomas Mostert, and others. But more importantly, there is the SDA Church Manual. Think it through. If the people who are pushing this change in Church structure had any value to their claims, why then do they not take their arguments to the General Conference in Open Session? Let them put their ideas forth like honest men, instead of behind closed doors. Certainly, if God supported changes like removing the Church Board in favor of an "Accountability Board" and the "Ministry Board," then the entire church would see the light. Instead look at the chaos and confusion in Minnesota Conference, Rocky Mountain Conference, and Potomac Conference, where the system in play at the Takoma Park Church is used.
If nothing else we know that the God is not the lord of confusion. If so, we know that God is not in the Healthy Church Initiative.
However Saul decided to save Agag, the Amalekite King, and all the "Grade A" cattle, sheep, oxen, etc. Saul, and those that empowered him to make this choice, were (possibly) thinking, "Hey listen, we probably should make a sacrifice to God when we get back, right? Okay fine, why don't we take their best cattle and livestock, and sacrifice that? C'mon, guys! This is genius! We save our stuff, God gets His sacrifice, and in the end everything gets destroyed, just like we were ordered. I mean, come right down to it, does God really care how we get the job done, as long as we do it? It's a "win-win" for everyone...except the Amalekites!" I can only imagine the laughter. Of course, this "reasoning" seemed right in Saul's eyes. So King Saul and the rest of the desert trek crew head back home, to be greeted by the news from Samuel of God's anger and displeasure.
"...Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to harken than the fat of rams."
Fast forward a few thousand years to the founding and organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. According to Ellen G. White, God was the Founder of this Faith, and the early Adventist pioneers came up with a organizational structure, as detailed in the Church Manual, came after long periods of fasting, sleepless nights, and endless prayer. Ellen White cautioned that the development of our organizational structure was guided by the Holy Spirit. She admonished that we tamper with this structure at our own peril. If the Book of Samuel is any indication, it would be reasonable to assume that following His direction in the form of the Church Manual is one of many situations in which God wants our obedience.
But instead, what do we have today in the 21st Century? Seventh-day Adventists, both clergy and laity, who look to Baptist and Pentacostal "mega-churches" and covet their "successes." Not success as defined by searching the Scriptures, or success in sharing in Third Angel's message, or success in telling people what the Bible says about the imminent return of Jesus, but success measured in terms of big buildings, and big congregations, and big money. What a pity that these people seem to forget that if we are doing God's will, the need for anything would be the least of our worries.
To some small degree, I can actually feel for the people pushing the "Healthy Church Initiative." It's been more than a century and a half since the beginning of the Advent movement. We believe that we are God's remnant Church. And yet we look at other faiths, other belief systems both in and out of Christendom, and see huge growth. The Crystal Cathedral. The Saddleback Church. Joel Olsteen. T. D. Jakes.
Some Adventist pastors, and laity, seem to be thinking, "These ministries have huge followings. If we are the Remnant Church, why aren't we growing like they are? Hey! I have an idea. We're smart people, why don't we copy everything the 'Church Growth Movement' people do? We know the basics already. We can either go back to the 1950s and study the original work by Donald McGavran, or we can study modern McGavran incarnations like 'The Purpose Driven Church.' That part would be easy enough since they even host websites like 'Pastors.com' and/or 'Sermons.com.'" Another party to the conversation could have said,"Well if we are going to go that route, then why don't we just hire a church growth consultant? C'mon, it's not like we don't have a budget line item for 'Evangelism.' Let's hire some guy to 're-brand' us. We'll bring in some drums, electric guitars, and get everyone up on their feet screaming and shouting! In fact, if we run the numbers, I'll bet we'll find we can save a ton of cash by not buying hymnals. Who really wants to take the time and think about what hymns are trying say? The concept of hymns as 'prayers in song' is old fashioned, anyway. We can even give it a cool name like the Healthy Church Initiative!" A third member to this conservation could have added," You know guys, there's another way to look at as well, just between us. There's a cost benefit analysis piece the entire church is missing. The percentage of tithes and offerings are down. We have renovations a lot of us would like to see made to the Conference headquarters. Then we have our salaries, and the large number of our employees that are baby boomers that will be retiring soon. Add all that to increased energy costs and other sundries. We need cash. One way to do it is to grow churches. Do the math. Even if we get a portion of new members to pay consistent tithes and offerings, we'll be in a better position financially. Why in some of the so-called 'Mega-Churches,' they manage their tithes and offerings by telling parishioners that God won't bless them, or even answer their prayers unless they give generously to their churches. We not only can do this, we have to do this." Yet another "in-group" member no doubt said, "You know there are going to be a few members, and maybe even a few pastors that are going to push back on this. From what I've read, in order to make these 'Purpose Driven' churches work in terms of reaching out to non-SDAs, we have to 'calm down' preaching about some of our doctrines. We can't talk about Hell, or the 'Time of Trouble' because it will scare people. If we talk about Ellen G. White, they'll thing we're nuts. In fact we can't talk about sin, because we'll be called 'judgmental' or 'haters.' The big problem will be that we will have to change the way our Church is organized and the way decisions are made. Some members are bound to object." To which a senior in-group member probably said something like, "Let them. This is serious business. We have to grow our churches. We can't get the clergy or the laity to commit to actual Bible training so they can go out and teach their neighbors, and we aren't doing in-gathering anymore. From what I've read, there are some pretty effective tactics we can use to shut down any members that don't want to get with the program. We're pastors, after all. Who's running this church anyway? Us or them? Besides, we know better. In the end, we'll increase tithes, we can be more competitive and more main-stream, and we can even get new members. It will be a win-win for everyone."
The problem with this reasoning starts with the question, "Who's running this Church, anyway." The right and only answer is God. Case closed. The Church is the bride of Christ. In the meantime, we are supposed to serve, help, and love another, both inside and outside the Church. We are supposed to both prepare ourselves for His return and and tell others to prepare as well. But that message is lost in the rush to create an "Adventist Clone" of the Purpose Driven Church, or a Saddleback Church, or any one of the several nome-de-plumes for an organization run by a clergy that call the SDA Manual guidelines, and demands the laity "submit to their authority."
Shame. Shame on any SDA clergy anywhere in the world for pushing a system that is contrary to Protestant and SDA core beliefs. Shame on any laity blindly following confeence or pastoral "leadership" that would take us in a direction contrary to God's plan for our Church.. There's wrong, and then there's wrong, and then there's this.
God gave us brains and intelligence so that we might heed the admonition of Isiah 1:18, " Come now, and let us reason together." The key word here is reason. Those who have studied the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, have enough information to know that what Bill Miller and many Potomac Conference pastors are doing is wrong.
But it doesn't stop there. There are books and articles by by Jay Galimore, and Richard O'Ffill, and Thomas Mostert, and others. But more importantly, there is the SDA Church Manual. Think it through. If the people who are pushing this change in Church structure had any value to their claims, why then do they not take their arguments to the General Conference in Open Session? Let them put their ideas forth like honest men, instead of behind closed doors. Certainly, if God supported changes like removing the Church Board in favor of an "Accountability Board" and the "Ministry Board," then the entire church would see the light. Instead look at the chaos and confusion in Minnesota Conference, Rocky Mountain Conference, and Potomac Conference, where the system in play at the Takoma Park Church is used.
If nothing else we know that the God is not the lord of confusion. If so, we know that God is not in the Healthy Church Initiative.
What is unity? (conclusion)
In thinking about what I wrote last week I don't think I made my point as well as I could have. I offer this conclusion to bring my remarks into sharper focus.
There are proper official forums in which to address church disputes. We tried to use them and were driven out. When we tried to use unofficial forums that would not "interfere with church business" we were told we were wrong for not using the official forums. The pastors thereby created a "catch 22" situation in which the only "correct" thing to do would be to shut up and let them do whatever they wanted.
Aside from being in direct opposition to the democratic rights of open, sincere dialogue embraced by the SDA Church worldwide, this was wrong because it failed to resolve the underlying issue. Even if the Group were to dutifully shut up and go along with the pastoral program we would know in our hearts that what we were doing was wrong and the whole unresolved matter would fester within the congregation. This would do far more to disrupt the unity of the congregation in the long run than simply allowing the matter to be addressed fairly in the beginning. This process has been so long and hurt so many people not because of any malicious act on our part but because the powers that be in the SDA Church refuse to deal with the situation. In short, what we have is an open wound that has become infected because the medical personnel prefer to pretend it doesn't exist rather than treat it. The blame for this disunity-causing negligence lies squarely with the Takoma Park pastors and the Potomac Conference.
Religious
There are proper official forums in which to address church disputes. We tried to use them and were driven out. When we tried to use unofficial forums that would not "interfere with church business" we were told we were wrong for not using the official forums. The pastors thereby created a "catch 22" situation in which the only "correct" thing to do would be to shut up and let them do whatever they wanted.
Aside from being in direct opposition to the democratic rights of open, sincere dialogue embraced by the SDA Church worldwide, this was wrong because it failed to resolve the underlying issue. Even if the Group were to dutifully shut up and go along with the pastoral program we would know in our hearts that what we were doing was wrong and the whole unresolved matter would fester within the congregation. This would do far more to disrupt the unity of the congregation in the long run than simply allowing the matter to be addressed fairly in the beginning. This process has been so long and hurt so many people not because of any malicious act on our part but because the powers that be in the SDA Church refuse to deal with the situation. In short, what we have is an open wound that has become infected because the medical personnel prefer to pretend it doesn't exist rather than treat it. The blame for this disunity-causing negligence lies squarely with the Takoma Park pastors and the Potomac Conference.
Religious
Saturday, April 18, 2009
What is unity?
One of the recurring accusations made by the pastoral staff as this situation has progressed has been that we are causing disunity. It's an issue that deserves analysis. What is disunity? For that matter, what is unity?
I believe unity can best be defined by what it is not. Unity is not uniformity. Unity is not refusing to question authority. Unity is not sweeping problems under the rug to preserve "appearances." Unity is having a shared purpose. A purpose so important that you are willing to labor together as long as necessary to accomplish that purpose. Disunity, then, is either refusing to labor toward the shared purpose or causing a gratuitous disruption in that labor. Disunity is not sincerely disagreeing with each other about how best to accomplish that purpose.
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" Phil. 2:12.
“We cannot, we must not, place blind confidence in any man, however high his profession of faith or his position in the church. We must not follow his guidance, unless the Word of God sustains him. The Lord would have His people individually distinguish between sin and righteousness, between the precious and the vile” (Signs of the Times, Aug. 17, 1882).
It is not only our right but our duty to explore and determine for ourselves the veracity of the direction our leaders what us to go. If that exploration leads us to believe that that direction is faulty it is also our duty to stand up and say so.
When this situation began the Group brought up its concerns in the official, sanctioned forums for discussion of church issues (board meetings, business meetings, elders' meetings, etc.). Much of the membership was open to hearing what we had to say and openly discussing it, but the pastors were not, so they took to accusing us of impeding the work of the church and causing disunity. As in all congregations, there are many at Takoma Park who are willing to take pastoral statements at face value without investigation, and these people accepted the pastoral accusation. These days any time one of us stands up to speak in an official meeting we are immediately greeted with eye-rolling and sighs of exasperation.
When it became clear that we weren't welcome to have open discussions in official forums we turned to unofficial ones. We spoke to our fellow members by ones and twos as chance meetings permitted and met in each others' homes to consider the matter. This so irritated Pastor DeSilva that he actually got up in church during the first service one Sabbath and announced that no one was allowed to have meetings unless they were approved in advance by either a pastor or the head elder. At the second service that same Sabbath he had the head elder make the same announcement.
In the course of later events which will be described in detail in their proper order in The Epic, we sent a couple of petition-style letters with multiple signatures. Pastor DeSilva actually had the nerve to interpret the increased number of signatures from the first letter to the second as "proof" that we were bothering people and disrupting the church!
Is it really us who have caused the "disunity," or is it our pastors? Everything we have done has been because we feel convicted that our congregation has taken a wrong turn and needs to be warned of the error. If our pastors had been more concerned about open, honest discussion and resolution of the matter than about quelling dissention we wouldn't be in this situation now.
Christian unity isn't never disagreeing with each other or church leadership. Even within the early church (which is often pointed to as the model of Christian unity) there were issues and disagreements. What made them unified was their willingness to address the matters head-on and find resolutions so that those issues didn't distract from the common purpose. We have repeatedly reached out to our pastors achieve precisely that sort of discussion and resolution and have been met with nothing but hostility. If there is disunity at Takoma Park it is not of our causing.
Religious
I believe unity can best be defined by what it is not. Unity is not uniformity. Unity is not refusing to question authority. Unity is not sweeping problems under the rug to preserve "appearances." Unity is having a shared purpose. A purpose so important that you are willing to labor together as long as necessary to accomplish that purpose. Disunity, then, is either refusing to labor toward the shared purpose or causing a gratuitous disruption in that labor. Disunity is not sincerely disagreeing with each other about how best to accomplish that purpose.
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" Phil. 2:12.
“We cannot, we must not, place blind confidence in any man, however high his profession of faith or his position in the church. We must not follow his guidance, unless the Word of God sustains him. The Lord would have His people individually distinguish between sin and righteousness, between the precious and the vile” (Signs of the Times, Aug. 17, 1882).
It is not only our right but our duty to explore and determine for ourselves the veracity of the direction our leaders what us to go. If that exploration leads us to believe that that direction is faulty it is also our duty to stand up and say so.
When this situation began the Group brought up its concerns in the official, sanctioned forums for discussion of church issues (board meetings, business meetings, elders' meetings, etc.). Much of the membership was open to hearing what we had to say and openly discussing it, but the pastors were not, so they took to accusing us of impeding the work of the church and causing disunity. As in all congregations, there are many at Takoma Park who are willing to take pastoral statements at face value without investigation, and these people accepted the pastoral accusation. These days any time one of us stands up to speak in an official meeting we are immediately greeted with eye-rolling and sighs of exasperation.
When it became clear that we weren't welcome to have open discussions in official forums we turned to unofficial ones. We spoke to our fellow members by ones and twos as chance meetings permitted and met in each others' homes to consider the matter. This so irritated Pastor DeSilva that he actually got up in church during the first service one Sabbath and announced that no one was allowed to have meetings unless they were approved in advance by either a pastor or the head elder. At the second service that same Sabbath he had the head elder make the same announcement.
In the course of later events which will be described in detail in their proper order in The Epic, we sent a couple of petition-style letters with multiple signatures. Pastor DeSilva actually had the nerve to interpret the increased number of signatures from the first letter to the second as "proof" that we were bothering people and disrupting the church!
Is it really us who have caused the "disunity," or is it our pastors? Everything we have done has been because we feel convicted that our congregation has taken a wrong turn and needs to be warned of the error. If our pastors had been more concerned about open, honest discussion and resolution of the matter than about quelling dissention we wouldn't be in this situation now.
Christian unity isn't never disagreeing with each other or church leadership. Even within the early church (which is often pointed to as the model of Christian unity) there were issues and disagreements. What made them unified was their willingness to address the matters head-on and find resolutions so that those issues didn't distract from the common purpose. We have repeatedly reached out to our pastors achieve precisely that sort of discussion and resolution and have been met with nothing but hostility. If there is disunity at Takoma Park it is not of our causing.
Religious
Friday, April 10, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 10
The next forum at which we attempted to formally address our concerns was an Elders’ Meeting which was held on Dec. 30, 2007. At that meeting the matter was thoroughly discussed, and an open letter was prepared by the elders which stated five points of concern regarding the action taken to change the governance structure of our congregation and made two recommendations for addressing the matter. The letter was signed by the then head elder.
The Jan. 6 meeting began with Pastor DeSilva insisting that his wife, who was not an elder, be allowed to be present, even though he had made a big deal about no one but elders being allowed in the room. He further stated that if any elder asked Mrs. DeSilva to leave that he also would walk out. No elder made such a request. Pastor DeSilva then assumed control of the meeting and began to defend the new structure, drawing a chart of the new system on a white board in the room as he “explained” it. His drawing on the white board was faithfully copied down by one of the elders present, and is concluded below.
The explanation was followed by intense debate on the legitimacy of the new structure, in which Mrs. DeSilva took part. Several of the elders who had expressed concerns at the previous meeting were unable to attend the second one, which tipped the balance of voices in the pastor’s favor. Finally, one of the fence-sitting elders gave a “can’t we all just get along?” speech, which was followed by a vote for “unity.” The letter prepared the previous week was completely ignored, and Pastor DeSilva got up before the congregation the following Sabbath to crow that the elders had “unified” behind the new structure.
Next: Long-delayed Business
The catch in this progress was that Pastor DeSilva was not present at that meeting, and since the pastor ranks above the board of elders (though he is to consult and cooperate with them), no action could be taken on the recommendations made by the elders until he had been brought on board. To this end a second Elders’ Meeting was scheduled for the next week, Jan. 6, in order to discuss the matter with Pastor DeSilva. That meeting had a far different character from the first.
The Jan. 6 meeting began with Pastor DeSilva insisting that his wife, who was not an elder, be allowed to be present, even though he had made a big deal about no one but elders being allowed in the room. He further stated that if any elder asked Mrs. DeSilva to leave that he also would walk out. No elder made such a request. Pastor DeSilva then assumed control of the meeting and began to defend the new structure, drawing a chart of the new system on a white board in the room as he “explained” it. His drawing on the white board was faithfully copied down by one of the elders present, and is concluded below.
The explanation was followed by intense debate on the legitimacy of the new structure, in which Mrs. DeSilva took part. Several of the elders who had expressed concerns at the previous meeting were unable to attend the second one, which tipped the balance of voices in the pastor’s favor. Finally, one of the fence-sitting elders gave a “can’t we all just get along?” speech, which was followed by a vote for “unity.” The letter prepared the previous week was completely ignored, and Pastor DeSilva got up before the congregation the following Sabbath to crow that the elders had “unified” behind the new structure.
Next: Long-delayed Business
Religious
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 9
Shortly after the unproductive meeting with Elders Miller and Pichette the Group gathered to discuss what had happened and what should be done next. An elder who had followed up the meeting with a phone call to Elder Weigley gave a report on the substance of that conversation. After being told what had happened in the meeting with Elder Miller, Elder Weigley pointed out several issues regarding the vote for the new structure which could be used as a basis for appeal of the matter. (These appeal points, along with others, have already been outlined in The Epic, Pt.4.)
This advice brought the discussion to a crucial question: What exactly was our goal? To simply have the specific vote overturned based on technicalities would leave the door open to a revote. It was a question we would revisit frequently in the coming months as the problem evolved, but we established our foundational answer that night. We must not only reverse the vote in favor of the Borden Report, but also establish somehow that the only acceptable means of governing our congregation was by strict adherence to the method outlined in the Church Manual.
Next: False Hope
Religious
This advice brought the discussion to a crucial question: What exactly was our goal? To simply have the specific vote overturned based on technicalities would leave the door open to a revote. It was a question we would revisit frequently in the coming months as the problem evolved, but we established our foundational answer that night. We must not only reverse the vote in favor of the Borden Report, but also establish somehow that the only acceptable means of governing our congregation was by strict adherence to the method outlined in the Church Manual.
Next: False Hope
Religious
The Epic, Pt 8
After lengthy discussions among those bothered by the vote in favor of the Paul Borden Report (hereinafter “the Group”) it was decided that a fact-finding meeting was needed with the Potomac Conference. One of the elders in the Group called down to the Conference to request a meeting with the Conference president, Elder Miller. Elder Miller agreed to the meeting on the stipulation that there be no more than eight members of the congregation present. Present with Elder Miller would be Elder Pichette. The meeting was held on December 12, 2007.
No specific list of attendees was prepared by the Group in advance, because it was unclear exactly who would be able to make it to the meeting. As it happened, eight people showed up at the appointed time and place and the meeting began. Not long into the meeting, however, a ninth Group member arrived. Rather than gracefully accepting the presence of another concerned constituent Elder Miller placed himself in the doorway to physically block the entrance of the latecomer and announced, “We have one too many people here.” In order to resolve the situation one of the eight people already in the room volunteered to leave.
The following questions were asked of the Potomac Conference officials and provided to them in writing:
1. Who initiated the directive that the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church’s organizational structure be changed—the Potomac Conference or the Senior Pastor?
2. Were guidelines (as outlined in the Church Manual) followed regarding changing the local Church’s organizational structure?
3. Did the Union, North American Division, and General Conference agree to the new structure, although it is not in accordance with the Church Manual?
4. If a staff-led structure is good for Takoma Park Church, then why not begin with a staff-led conference structure, with a president who appoints the executive committee?
Also asked was whether it was really necessary to change the structure of the church in order to do outreach.
The Group further brought up a number of objections to the new system, as well as the fact that the circumstances of the vote to approve the Paul Borden Report were unfair and inappropriate.
The objections, also provided in writing, were as follows:
1. A staff-led structure is hierarchical, which divorces itself from the Church Manual and is contrary to the ethics, ecclesiology, and polity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
2. A staff-led structure does not enhance equality, shared authority, responsibility, and accountability, but rather excludes 99.9% of the membership.
3. A staff-led structure can encourage and/or lead to abuse of power.
4. A staff-led structure can lead to authoritarianism, with a few hand-picked people making decisions and dictating to the membership. Spirit of Prophesy quotation: “Even if a ruler were naturally merciful and benevolent, unlimited power over his fellow men would tend to make him a despot. Such power God alone is able to use with justice and wisdom.” Signs of the Times, July 13, 1882.
Elders Miller and Pichette initially made no reply to any of the questions or objections and were preparing to leave to go to another engagement when they were pressed to at least answer who had suggested Paul Borden. Elder Miller finally stated that Pastor DeSilva had come to him to ask for an assessment of Takoma Park and that he [Elder Miller] had recommended Paul Borden.
When one of the Group members observed that the recent events were going to be bad for the church Elder Miller responded, “Well, Sister, I’ve seen where churches have had to go down to 20 before they got turned around.” On that rather dismaying note the meeting ended. The Group was absolutely dumbfounded that a conference official would express such reckless disregard for the souls of those who didn’t see eye to eye with him. It was clear to us then that no help could be expected from the Potomac Conference.
Next: Dare to Have a Purpose Firm
Religious
No specific list of attendees was prepared by the Group in advance, because it was unclear exactly who would be able to make it to the meeting. As it happened, eight people showed up at the appointed time and place and the meeting began. Not long into the meeting, however, a ninth Group member arrived. Rather than gracefully accepting the presence of another concerned constituent Elder Miller placed himself in the doorway to physically block the entrance of the latecomer and announced, “We have one too many people here.” In order to resolve the situation one of the eight people already in the room volunteered to leave.
The following questions were asked of the Potomac Conference officials and provided to them in writing:
1. Who initiated the directive that the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church’s organizational structure be changed—the Potomac Conference or the Senior Pastor?
2. Were guidelines (as outlined in the Church Manual) followed regarding changing the local Church’s organizational structure?
3. Did the Union, North American Division, and General Conference agree to the new structure, although it is not in accordance with the Church Manual?
4. If a staff-led structure is good for Takoma Park Church, then why not begin with a staff-led conference structure, with a president who appoints the executive committee?
Also asked was whether it was really necessary to change the structure of the church in order to do outreach.
The Group further brought up a number of objections to the new system, as well as the fact that the circumstances of the vote to approve the Paul Borden Report were unfair and inappropriate.
The objections, also provided in writing, were as follows:
1. A staff-led structure is hierarchical, which divorces itself from the Church Manual and is contrary to the ethics, ecclesiology, and polity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
2. A staff-led structure does not enhance equality, shared authority, responsibility, and accountability, but rather excludes 99.9% of the membership.
3. A staff-led structure can encourage and/or lead to abuse of power.
4. A staff-led structure can lead to authoritarianism, with a few hand-picked people making decisions and dictating to the membership. Spirit of Prophesy quotation: “Even if a ruler were naturally merciful and benevolent, unlimited power over his fellow men would tend to make him a despot. Such power God alone is able to use with justice and wisdom.” Signs of the Times, July 13, 1882.
Elders Miller and Pichette initially made no reply to any of the questions or objections and were preparing to leave to go to another engagement when they were pressed to at least answer who had suggested Paul Borden. Elder Miller finally stated that Pastor DeSilva had come to him to ask for an assessment of Takoma Park and that he [Elder Miller] had recommended Paul Borden.
When one of the Group members observed that the recent events were going to be bad for the church Elder Miller responded, “Well, Sister, I’ve seen where churches have had to go down to 20 before they got turned around.” On that rather dismaying note the meeting ended. The Group was absolutely dumbfounded that a conference official would express such reckless disregard for the souls of those who didn’t see eye to eye with him. It was clear to us then that no help could be expected from the Potomac Conference.
Next: Dare to Have a Purpose Firm
Religious
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)