Bullseye: Attitudes Towards Laity

Paul Borden makes so many absolutely flabbergasting statements about how lay members ought to be “dealt with” that it is hard to know where to start this subject. His statements stem from the previously discussed position that the congregation is the primary unit of mission and therefore sacrificing individuals is acceptable if you believe that doing so will benefit the congregation. Beyond the arguments we have already advanced in opposition to that position, the reality is that individuals can survive without the congregation if they need to, but congregations cannot continue to exist without individuals. Therefore, we go into this particular analysis with the assumption that we don’t need to reestablish that there is no such thing as an expendable soul. With that in mind, let’s look at some of Borden’s statements.

“One reason we are often unwilling to create specific goals and measures of effectiveness is that we know that many in our 'family' will not measure up. Yet if we are committed to mission we must tell such people that if they cannot change they can no longer have positions in leadership. Such actions go against our current value of family. We say these people are part of the family so we cannot embarrass them or hurt them. As a result, we let our institutions develop a codependent habit of protection, thereby avoiding missional goals that demand accountability” (p.24).

“We are also willing to confront those congregations and congregational leaders (the emotional terrorists) who for years have chewed up pastors and spit them out” (p.32).

We can’t speak to the sort of family life Borden has experienced, but this doesn’t sound like a description of our families. Our understanding of family life includes calling family members on bad or unhealthful behaviors, or when they are not performing in a way that best utilizes their potential. The key is that this is done in love, because the family desires the best good for the member they are addressing. This behavior is a necessary part of maintaining a healthy family. There may be families who refuse to address the unhealthy behaviors of its members, just as there may be organizations who refuse to address unhealthy behaviors of their members, and as a result allow the entire unit to become unhealthy. But the bottom line here is not the legitimacy of the metaphor of a family being applied to the church (which was initiated by Christ Himself), but rather whether the relationships in that church family are healthy or unhealthy. If those relationships are so unhealthy that it is not possible to address issues with members in love and a desire for their best good, then addressing them without love and in a spirit that assumes they are disposable is certainly only going to make matters worse. “Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity” (1 Tim. 5:1, 2).

“One thing we who were new to the region had learned in former ministries was that even good changes are resisted by those who hold current positions of influence, if that change means they no longer have influence. We had also learned that most who were in positions of influence now would resist change, again, no matter how effective that change might be, since those changes would be perceived as a repudiation of their current leadership, which in most cases was true” (p.134).

We are struck by the contrast between this statement and the statements discussed in the previous chapter of this series in which Borden claims, “I always assume the best…of every pastor” (p.110), and speaks of the “moral obligation” (p.42) to train pastors in the skills necessary to accomplish the tasks they are given. As we said in the previous chapter, we believe that the principle of believing the best of someone until proven otherwise should be applied to both pastors and lay members. Here Borden openly confesses that he starts by assuming the worst of lay members. It then ceases to be surprising that he can so easily implement such ruthless actions against them.

But let’s get back to that moral obligation. If pastors, who have formal theological and ministerial training, could be in need of additional training in order to be effective, doesn’t it stand to reason that the same could be true of lay members? Borden speaks of repudiating the current lay leadership. If they are fulfilling their obligations to the best of their training it hardly seems fair that they should be repudiated for failing to use skills they haven’t been trained to develop. Lay leaders should be given as much opportunity and assistance to develop their ministry potential as pastors are given. We are willing to allow that such lay leaders might be filling positions for which their spiritual gifts are not best suited, but in that case the moral obligation becomes one of helping the individual find the area of ministry in which they are most effective, rather than simply plowing them out of the way of the new order of things. Every individual has a work to do for God.

“Our heavenly Father has been pleased to make men co-laborers with himself in the work of human redemption. Those who have been commissioned to preach the gospel are not the only ones whom he will use as his instruments. All whose minds have been illuminated by the Holy Spirit will in their turn be required to enlighten others. 'None of us liveth to himself.' Every individual has his station of duty in the accomplishment of God's great plan. And every one who receives and obeys the light which God has given, will be a living witness for Christ and the truth” (Review and Herald, February 9, 1886 par. 4).

“Not all are called to engage in the same line of labor, but to every man and woman who enters the service of Christ, are given responsibilities to bear, and a special work to do. My brethren and sisters, Christ sends you this message, 'Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of Me.' Humble your hearts before God, and seek counsel of Him who never makes a mistake. …You are Christ's purchased possession. Ask Him to tell you what He would have you do” (Jehovah Is Our King, p.5).

“Our churches are not receiving the kind of training that will lead them to walk in all humility of mind, to put away all pride of external display, and to labor for the inward adorning. The efficiency of the church is precisely what the zeal, purity, self-denial, and intelligent labor of the ministers make it. An active missionary spirit should characterize its individual members. They must have deeper piety, stronger faith, and broader views. They must make more thorough work in personal effort. What we need is a living religion. A single individual of enlarged conceptions of duty, whose soul is in communion with God and who is full of zeal for Christ, will exert a powerful influence for good. He drinks at no low, turbid, polluted stream, but from the pure, high waters at the fountainhead; and he can communicate a new spirit and power to the church. As the pressure from without increases, God would have His church vitalized by the sacred, solemn truths they believe. The Holy Spirit from heaven, working with the sons and daughters of God, will surmount obstacles and hold the vantage ground against the enemy. God has great victories in reserve for His truth-loving, commandment-keeping people. The fields are already whitening for the harvest. We have light, and rich, glorious endowments from heaven in the truth made ready to our hands; but men and women have not been educated and disciplined to work in the fast-ripening harvest fields” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 5, pp.581, 582).

Borden’s beliefs about lay members are self-fulfilling. He assumes that his strategies will be opposed, and then admits that he deliberately goes about stirring up opposition.

“The best way to expose poor values and give congregations the opportunity to embrace new values is to create stress. Therefore, in our prescription process we usually offered some ways to put the body under stress” (p.94).

Having made the problem, Borden goes about “fixing” it.

“We were open to confronting individuals who were unable to make the changes or who even worked against the changes” (p.63).

“For example we would often have people take on new behaviors and responsibilities and then act as though no change had occurred. In many cases it was simply a habitual response from the past while in others it was done in anger or malice. Every such case needed a response that was appropriate to the situation” (p.112).

“Third, we wanted the pastor to help us understand what we would encounter during the consultation weekend and who would be the most resistant to change and why that was so. Fourth, we wanted to know how we could help the pastor deal with those people most resistant to change” (p.88).

“When congregations are in decline or on a plateau those controlling it need to be replaced with those who will lead it to grow. Such action often creates friction. When this friction occurs it is important for those with influence to use it to protect the new leaders from the former leaders who would often rather be in positions of influence than see health and growth occur” (p.97).

This brings us to the subject of motive. Borden assumes that the exclusive motivation for opposition to his philosophies and systems is protection of personal power, status, and control. While Borden may be right in some cases (and we will address that eventuality in a moment), we find ourselves compelled to point out that there is another possibility—sincere conviction that his philosophies and systems are wrong. When this is the motive the solution is to have an open and honest dialogue. Such dialogue might not always produce agreement, but it would go a long way in reducing the friction and general angst of the situation. The key words here are “open” and “honest.” If either side enters the room with their minds made up the exercise is useless. The openness also encompasses making these dialogues accessible and transparent to the entire congregation. Trying to be secretive about and/or impose limitations on the communication will only exacerbate the friction.

The thing of it is, Borden doesn’t do dialogue. His approach goes into a situation assuming that it knows what is right and has all the answers and needs only for the parties concerned to either jump on the bandwagon or get out of the way. When placed face to face with such a disinterested juggernaut the only option available to those with serious concerns is to “raise a stink.” Some would say that there is also the option of completely keeping silent, but both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophesy condemn those who keep silent when they ought to speak up for God.

“He sent back this answer: ‘Do not think that because you are in the king's house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?’” (Esther 4:13, 14).

“Now as in former ages, the presentation of a truth that reproves the sins and errors of the times will excite opposition. 'Everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.' John 3:20. As men see that they cannot maintain their position by the Scriptures, many determine to maintain it at all hazards, and with a malicious spirit they assail the character and motives of those who stand in defense of unpopular truth…

“In view of this, what is the duty of the messenger of truth? Shall he conclude that the truth ought not to be presented, since often its only effect is to arouse men to evade or resist its claims? No; he has no more reason for withholding the testimony of God's word, because it excites opposition, than had earlier Reformers. …They received grace and truth, not for themselves alone, but that, through them, the knowledge of God might enlighten the earth. Has God given light to His servants in this generation? Then they should let it shine forth to the world” (The Great Controversy, pp. 458, 459).

“Those who have too little courage to reprove wrong, or who through indolence or lack of interest make no earnest effort to purify the family or the church of God, are held accountable for the evil that may result from their neglect of duty. We are just as responsible for evils that we might have checked in others by exercise of parental or pastoral authority as if the acts had been our own” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p.578).

Of course, there is always the possibility that the motives of the objectors are not altruistic. Even then, however, we don’t endorse Borden’s methods of addressing the situation.

"Congregational transformation will create tremendous conflict in dysfunctional, dying churches. It will be even greater in congregations that perceive themselves as healthy when they are really dying. The worst thing that can happen in the midst of such conflict is mediation, since the conflict is more about the transfer of power and who will lead the congregation, than individuals or groups not being able to get along" (p.33).

“Third, for a congregation to move from dysfunction to health, it usually requires that those in control now can no longer have any say in the direction of the congregation. Yet these people usually perceive themselves to be either the most biblically literate or the most spiritually wise individuals in the congregation, which is why they think they should be in control. After all they usually have hung around the longest, investing the most time and sometimes the most money in the life of the congregation” (p.73).

“We found that by touching structure we created stress, because the changes affected those who, often for years, had been in power, protected turf, and controlled the money and in turn the overall ministry of the congregation. This move exposed those who desired a congregation that was truly interested in reaching out to people versus those who wanted to control things, even if it meant that such control would bring eventual death to the congregation” (pp.94, 95).

Borden’s universal method of dealing with lay members who don’t share his views is to exclude them from influencing the congregation, and if that is not sufficient to silence them, ask them to leave altogether. This methodology avoids actually addressing whether the person is right or wrong in the stand that they have taken, and that is a problem. It is, however, not a new one. The founders of the Adventist Church faced similar methods when they accepted the truth of the nearness of the second coming.

“The minister did not attempt to refer to a single text that would prove us in error, but excused himself on the plea of a want of time. He advised us to quietly withdraw from the church, and avoid the publicity of a trial. We were aware that others of our brethren were meeting with similar treatment for a like cause, and we did not wish it understood that we were ashamed to acknowledge our faith, or were unable to sustain it by Scripture; so my parents insisted that they should be acquainted with the reasons for this request.

“The only answer to this was an evasive declaration that we had walked contrary to the rules of the church, and the best course would be to voluntarily withdraw from it to save a trial. We answered that we preferred a regular trial, and demanded to know what sin was charged to us, as we were conscious of no wrong in looking for and loving the appearing of the Saviour. [THUS, FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN THEIR STEADFAST TESTIMONY REGARDING THEIR BELIEF IN THE SOON COMING OF CHRIST, THE HARMON FAMILY WERE SEPARATED FROM THE METHODIST CHURCH.]” (Christian Experience and Teachings of Ellen White, p. 44).

If a person is raising objections over sincere and legitimate concerns, that behavior does not constitute grounds for punishment or exclusion from church involvement. On the other hand, if the person is acting against the best good of the congregation out of selfish interest that behavior needs to be actively checked by the congregation. Either way, it simply doesn’t work to sweep the objections under the rug. What the person has to say needs to be fairly and openly considered by the congregation as a whole, which then needs to reach a conclusion about the legitimacy of the statements made and act accordingly. Again, the key words are “fairly” and “openly.” As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

“As local congregational leaders began to risk in leading their respective congregations from dysfunction to health, those resisting the change often contacted judicatory leaders. It was at this point we assured these resisters that their congregational leaders were on track and needed their support even when the change produced great pain. For some of the critics our support was enough. When that occurred the change happened more quickly, because the judicatory had thrown its support and credibility behind congregational leaders. Other congregational critics however, were frustrated with our support of their leaders. They in turn went around the judicatory and complained to national leaders. The national leaders by and large did not support the leaders at either the congregational level or the regional level. When this occurred the change process was slowed down considerably. These critics created havoc with members of the congregation by playing their denomination’s leaders against each other. Their actions were much like a child playing parents against each other so the child does not have to do her or his homework” (p.80).

“Tremendous change can occur in a short amount of time when both the pastors and lay leaders are in agreement about making changes and are committed to not allowing individuals within the congregation to drive wedges between them collectively or individually” (p.54).

Here again we see at work the juggernaut that takes no notice of alternate viewpoints and refuses to listen to the wisdom of others. The most significant point it refuses to acknowledge is that if God were really in the changes they would naturally foster a greater unity and zeal for mission, not an atmosphere of friction or stress which must be overcome.

“God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. The selfishness that exalts one man to rule the minds of his fellow men is not inspired of God; for the Lord works in and through those who will be worked by Him, and who in every line of Christian service will act in accordance with divine enlightenment” (Spalding and Magan Collection, p.247).

Scripture sums up this subject quite effectively.

“Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,’ he said. ‘Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.’

“Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.’

“When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed them: ‘Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God’” (Acts 5:27-39).