Bullseye: Corporate Distinctiveness

One aspect of Paul Borden’s approach to church growth which we have brushed against a few times but not yet directly addressed is his minimizing of the distinctiveness of the various denominations in order to impose a one-size-fits-all diagnosis and solution on the congregations he consults with. He goes so far as to openly state, “Our beliefs about God, Jesus Christ and God’s Church may need to change if we are to see our congregations change” (p.19). While this fits in very nicely with the popular secular opinion that all denominations, and even all religions, are merely different paths to the same goal, this approach is deeply troubling to those who do actually believe in the existence of absolute truth.

We are Seventh-day Adventists because we believe that the Adventist Church correctly interprets the Word of God and His intentions for our lives. We also believe that this makes the distinctive features of Adventism more correct and more desirable than those of other denominations or religions. We assume that Baptists would hold the same view of the Baptist Church, as would Methodists about the Methodist Church, Hindus about Hinduism, etc. Our point is not to get into a theological analysis about which denomination or religion is ultimately superior; our point at this moment is that one chooses to belong to a particular denomination or religion because one embraces the uniqueness of that group as being meaningful, significant, and superior to the alternatives. As such it is not desirable to dismiss those distinctive beliefs lightly. As Scripture says, “Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal. 1:7-9). When an individual is confident that what they believe is true they should not be willing to sacrifice any portion of that truth for even so worthy a goal as more converts.

“When the church stand as God's chosen people should, they will be a peculiar people, zealous of good works. There will be no slackness, no concord with Belial. Oh that we could realize what God's people might now be, had they kept themselves in his love, without any compromise with evil, and had retained the peculiar character that distinguished them, and separated them from the world! In experience, in wisdom, in true holiness, they would be years in advance of what they now are. But as a people our obedience, our devotion, our spiritual attainments, are very far from being in proportion to our privileges, and to our sacred obligation to walk as children of the light” (Review and Herald, October 21, 1884 par. 22).

Apparently Borden was confronted with the same concerns when he began to bring in “outside experts” to consult with and train the Baptist congregations under his jurisdiction. “As one person in our denomination put it, if we keep letting them in we will lose our distinctiveness and heritage” (p.25).

Borden responded, “Since we have been declining and losing people and congregations, perhaps our distinctiveness and heritage need to be reevaluated by people from outside” (p.26). Now, if the “distinctiveness and heritage” being reevaluated are on the order of whether to have popcorn and fruit salad for supper every Saturday night we have no problem with soliciting outside opinions (assuming, of course, that someone would actually care enough to have an opinion on that subject). Cultural habits and human-made traditions without theological impact are open to scrutiny and alteration should they prove to be in the way of mission. Not open for reevaluation is anything on which there is a clear, “Thus says the Lord.”

"Another sin of the mind is that of extolling and deifying human reason, to the neglect of divine revelation. Here, too, we must 'gird up the loins of the mind.' We are living in an age when the minds of men are ever on the stretch for something new. Rightly, directed, and kept within proper limits, this desire is commendable. God has given us in his created works enough to excite thought and stimulate investigation. He does not desire men to be less acute, less inquiring, or less intelligent. But with all our aspirations, and in all our researches, we should remember that arrogance is not greatness, nor is conceit knowledge. Human pride is an evidence, not of strength, but of weakness. It reveals not wisdom, but folly. To exalt reason unduly is to abase it. To place the human in rivalry with the divine, is to make it contemptible" (Review and Herald, January 19, 1886 par. 11).

The task that now falls to us is to determine where this line between negotiable and nonnegotiable falls. More to the point in the current context, on which side of the line is church structure and governance?

“I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work, and to say what plans should be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body . . . . God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing, is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church, in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 9, pp. 260, 261).

“Resolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will of the body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of individual conscience” (Review and Herald, vol. 50, No. 14, p.106).

We have doubtless all heard the saying that “if A equals B, and B equals C, then A must equal C.” In this case “A equals B” is that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is a decision by the General Conference in Session, which “should be submitted to by all without exception.” “B equals C” is that the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual (which spells out the structure for Adventist congregations) is a product of the General Conference in Session, with a new edition issued each time a Session is held. (This happens every five years.) Therefore, “A equals C” is that the Church Manual should be submitted to by all without exception, unless it can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of individual conscience. This puts the structure of Adventist congregations squarely on the nonnegotiable side of the line.

The Spirit of Prophesy speaks of the unfortunate results of humans tampering with the structures and governments designed for them by God in the context of the Children of Israel demanding a king.

“The Hebrews demanded a king of Samuel, like the nations around them. By preferring a despotic monarch to the wise and mild government of God Himself, by the jurisdiction of His prophets, they showed a great want of faith in God, and confidence in His providence to raise them up rulers to lead and govern them. The children of Israel being peculiarly the people of God, their form of government was essentially different from all the nations around them. God had given them statutes and laws, and had chosen their rulers for them, and these leaders the people were to obey in the Lord. In all cases of difficulty and great perplexity, God was to be inquired of. Their demand for a king was a rebellious departure from God, their special leader. He knew that a king would not be best for His chosen people. . . . If they had a king, whose hearts was lifted up and not right with God, he would lead them away from Him, and cause them to rebel against Him. The Lord knew that no one could occupy the position of king, and receive the honors usually given to a king, without becoming exalted, and their ways seem right in their own eyes, while at the same time they were sinning against God.

“God had separated the Israelites from every other people, to make them His own peculiar treasure. But they, disregarding this high honor, eagerly desired to imitate the example of the heathen! And still the longing to conform to worldly practices and customs exists among the professed people of God. As they depart from the Lord they become ambitious for the gains and honors of the world. Christians are constantly seeking to imitate the practices of those who worship the god of this world. Many urge that by uniting with worldlings and conforming to their customs they might exert a stronger influence over the ungodly. But all who pursue this course thereby separate from the Source of their strength. Becoming the friends of the world, they are the enemies of God” (Conflict and Courage, p.146).

So where does all of this leave us? It should leave us with the conclusion that distinctiveness is not something to be ashamed of or minimized. It should also leave us looking to God. He has called us to be His “peculiar” people in any and every sense of that word which suits Him. We are to follow His lead, and not allow the current fads in human wisdom to lure us away from whatever peculiarity He has called us to.

"How can man be just with God? This is the one great question that most concerns mankind. Can human reasoning find an answer?--No; revelation alone can solve this all-important problem, can shed light upon the pathway of man's life. What folly, then, to turn from the one great source of light, the Sun of righteousness, to follow the feeble and uncertain light of human wisdom!" (Review and Herald, January 19, 1886 par. 12).