As our Adventist readers know, GC Session begins next week in Atlanta. For our non-Adventist readers, GC Session (short for General Conference Session) is an event that occurs once every five years in which delegates from every part of the world church assemble for 10 days of meetings in which they make decisions on issues affecting the entire church worldwide. These decisions include, among other things, approving any and all changes to the Church Manual that the world church deems advisable and electing new General Conference officers (most notably, the president of the world church).
There are a lot of things that happen in addition to the business meetings. Daily religious programs, workshops, and concerts are held. There is an exhibit hall where various Church organizations and independant ministries publicize their activities and businesses catering to the Adventist lifestyle advertise their wares. Each evening different divisions of the world church make formal reports on the evangelistic work in their areas. Attendance is estimated to be as high as 80,000 people over the course of a Session. With that many Adventists traveling to one place from around the world the event also takes on the atmosphere of a giant family reunion.
We expect that the eyes of the Adventist world will be focused on Session for its duration and we have decided not to try to compete. Therefore, this will be our last post until after Session concludes in early July. Rest assured, we will be back when Session is over.
In the meantime we invite all those who will be attending Session, or even just watching parts of it on TV, to observe how the business sessions are conducted. Particularly watch how the meeting chair conducts themselves in regard to the percentage of the meeting they spend talking and the sorts of things they do or do not say (administrative comments vs. issue-related comments). Then compare your observations to what you see in how your pastor chairs the meetings of your local church. The results may be quite interesting.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
The Epic, Pt. 69
The following email was received from Elder Ramirez on the morning after the Executive Committee meeting (May 29, 2009).
“Gentlemen,
“In regards to the Takoma Park Church issue, the Potomac Conference Executive Committee voted last night to take some actions that seek reconciliation between the two sides. However, the committee is not ready to articulate them. We will meet again in about two weeks to finalize these actions. We will officially inform you of the outcome as soon as we are ready. Thank you for your prayers and continue interest in seen this issue resolved. I wish you a blessed Sabbath.
“Jorge A. RamÃrez
“Vice President for Administration
“Potomac Conference”
On June 10, 2009 word began to circulate that the Potomac Conference leadership had called a meeting of Takoma Park’s Church Ministries Board to be held the following evening, June 11. The conference was setting the agenda which, though not announced, was assumed to pertain to Takoma Park’s governance problems. It was also announced that it was to be a closed meeting—only members of the ministries board were to be allowed in the room. The combination of the short notice and meeting closure excluded many members of the Group from attending. (Most of the Group’s inner circle held elected leadership positions, just not ones that came with a seat on the ministries board.) We were surprised and disappointed that the conference chose to so exclude those who had made the appeal from hearing their decision on the matter.
After an introduction by Pastor DeSilva the meeting was turned over to Elder Miller. He gave a brief history of the appeal process we had followed (as he saw it, anyway). He informed the ministries board that after each side had made their presentations to the executive committee the committee had come to some very general conclusions and appointed a six-person delegation of committee members plus one Church Manual expert to study the matter further and flesh out the general direction that the committee had decided on. Elder Miller stated that the Church Manual expert who had assisted them was Dr. Gary Paterson. (We later discovered that this consultation with Dr. Paterson was not quite as it was represented to the ministries board, but we’ll get to that in a later post.) Elder Miller went on to say that the executive committee had met again that afternoon in a special session to hear the report of the delegation and finalize its recommendations.
Before presenting the formal recommendations of the executive committee Elder Miller declared that the committee had concluded that there was some misunderstanding about its role and power, and went on to “clarify” the misunderstanding. He said that the executive committee’s only “engagement” with the activities of a local congregation is to advise and disband congregations. He further stated that there was a need to be cautious that the Church Manual not be violated in the process of trying to enforce the Church Manual. In this context he claimed that involving the executive committee in its advisory capacity with the business of the local church should only occur at the formal request of the whole church body. Elder Miller compared the situation to small groups requesting that items be placed on the agenda of a constituency meeting and being told that they must first have the request endorsed by a congregation. He went on to describe the “role and power” of the higher administrative levels of the Church. Elder Miller claimed that the union's only power was to provide clarification on decisions and recommendations of the conference and to disband conferences. He further claimed that the division has no power at all because it is simply an arm of the General Conference, and that the General Conference can only advise and disband unions. His conclusion to all of this was that the executive committee was making a few recommendations to the Takoma Park Church, but that the church business meeting, as the highest authority in the congregation, was within its power to refuse them.
Elder Miller also stated that once the business meeting of the church made a decision the church must “move ahead.” In this statement we saw yet another veiled jab at the Group—his assertion that small groups had no right to appeal to the executive committee having been the first one—but this statement conveniently ignored the fact that the circumstances surrounding the original approval of the change in governance did not constitute a legitimate decision by the business meeting of the church. See The Epic, Pt. 5 (posted 10-19-08) and Double Take (posted 4-5-10) for explanations of the illegitimacy of the decision.
On the subject of whether a “small group” could appeal to the executive committee, Elder Miller took this opportunity to attempt to distance himself from the statement in the Manual that if a church was dissatisfied with a decision of the conference that it could appeal to the union for clarification. On this occasion he interpreted this statement as referring to an entire congregations' dissatisfaction, not that of an unofficial group within the congregation. Under this interpretation a group like the Group would have no standing for appeal to the union unless a formal decision to appeal was voted by the congregation. In making this interpretation Elder Miller made it sound as if it had been the Group that first introduced this statement from the Manual into the equation and that we were wrong to have done so. Once again he was conveniently ignoring the historical fact that he was the one to introduce this statement and the procedure described therein in his letter to the Group on June 17, 2008. The Group’s appeal to the statement since that date had simply been an attempt to follow through with the process that Elder Miller himself had prescribed. Just to remind everyone of what was said on that occasion, here is the relevant excerpt from that letter (the full text can be found in The Epic, Pt. 25, posted 9-15-09):
“I understand that you did take a request to the board of elders, on April 23, to refer this back to the church in Business session. This was denied. The next appropriate step would have been to then contact the conference administration with your dispute, with the full knowledge of the Pastor and board of elders to contact the conference in an official capacity and request a meeting. If the decision then made would not have met your group’s approval it would then be referred to the Executive Committee. After the Executive Committee the manual states:
“‘Churches should look to the local conference for advice pertaining to the operating of the church or on questions arising from the Church Manual. If mutual understanding or agreement is not reached, the matter should be referred to the union for clarification.’ xxii Church Manual 2005 edition.
“We will be glad to work a process as understood in principle by Matthew 18 and as outlined in the Church Manual.”
After making this presentation (the substance of which we will analyze in a separate post), Elder Miller distributed printed copies of the executive committee’s formal recommendations and made comments on each one. The following is what he distributed.
“Executive Committee Approved Recommendations
“The assigned group of the Executive Committee voted to recommend:
“1. In affirmation of the Takoma Park Church:
“a. Your support of the Mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
“b. Your desire to impact and reach the local community for Christ
“c. Your desire for accountability to the Mission and Vision of the church.
“d. Your desire for spiritual reconciliation
“2. Recommendations:
“a. Although the Church Manual does not specify that another name is incompatible, the Church Ministries Board should be called the Church Board
“b. The Support and Accountability Board be renamed to the Support and Accountability Council and that it be Selected by the Nominating Committee and reports to the Church Board
“c. The primary role of the Church Board is to discuss and plan the evangelism outreach for the church. The newly renamed Church Board should study pp. 90-92 in the manual to make sure the Board functions as stated.
“d. That 15 key individuals from each group join together to fast and pray; to pray for reconciliation, unity, humility, and renewed energy to focus on what it is God has called the Takoma Park Church to be. This will not be a time to discuss issues.
“e. Items a, b, & c voted by the Takoma Park Church in Business Session.”
Elder Miller asserted that the Manual doesn’t provide any process for congregations to make local hires, and that he and the executive committee’s delegation of six had found no consistency in hiring practices among the congregations they had surveyed. His conclusion from this was that it was acceptable for congregations to manage local hires however they wished. Therefore, the executive committee had concluded that there was nothing wrong with the accountability board existing separately from the ministries board for the purpose of managing local personnel, but that its conclusions should be brought back to the ministries board. To clarify the fact that it did not/should not possess the power to act independently the executive committee recommended that it be called a “council” rather than a “board.”
Elder Miller reiterated that the executive committee could not legislate the recommended reconciliation, or any other part of their recommendations. It was really a point that he dwelt on with quite a bit of fervor, so much so that one really got the impression that perhaps he didn’t like the conclusions the executive committee had come to and was rather hoping that the church would reject them, but that is conjecture rather than provable fact.
During the question period Elder J asked a couple of questions significant enough to document. Fairly quickly into the question period Pastor DeSilva had asked whether the recommended changes to the accountability board were the result of the current configuration being wrong or whether the current system was fine and the changes were purely for conciliatory purposes. Elder Miller had replied that the answer was “both/and.” Pastor DeSilva had pushed the point further, leading Elder Miller to emphasize the conciliatory aspect of the recommendations. Elder J picked up on the ambiguity of this answer and asked Elder Miller flat out why the conference was recommending changes if there wasn’t actually anything wrong with the way things were. When Elder Miller hesitated in answering Elder J put an even finer point on the question, asking Elder Miller for a definitive answer on whether the new governance was in harmony with the Church Manual. Elder Miller responded that he didn’t have before him a list of the articulated responsibilities of the various entities of the new governance system, and therefore could not give a direct answer to the question. (We feel a need to point out here that in its presentation to the executive committee the Group had provided the very lists Elder Miller claimed to be ignorant of and that their deficiencies had been discussed at length in that meeting. Either he had willfully ignored that presentation, or he was in this instance telling a deliberate lie to the ministries board. As to why he would do such a thing, the only answer that makes sense to us is that the Group did indeed prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and he therefore couldn’t say we were wrong, but he did not want to say we were right because that would have meant the undoing of his grand schemes for change, so he chose to evade the question entirely.)
The other significant question Elder J asked was whether disciplinary action could be taken against the Group if the church considered the executive committee’s recommendations, declined them, and the Group continued to appeal. Elder Miller responded that reconciliation should be the goal, but that ultimately discipline was the church's right.
When asked how the ministries board could maintain a focus on ministry if its name was changed to “church board,” Elder Miller observed that meeting discipline was needed—the board simply needed to make a commitment to focus on important things rather than unimportant ones. To this end he recommended 1) that meeting agendas be circulated in advance so that board members could get their thoughts together ahead of time and then speak to an issue only once during a meeting rather than speaking up several times in a disorganized way, 2) that ministry issues be placed on the top of the agenda rather than the bottom so that if anything was to be shorted on time it would be less significant items, and 3) that the duties, responsibilities, and relationships of the church board and all subcommittees be articulated and written down so that everyone could understand what each entity was supposed to be focusing its effort on. (This the Group actually found to be sound advice. We can’t help noticing that it is also advice that could have been given and implemented for the betterment of Takoma Park’s governance without the interference of a consultant or deviation from the stipulations of the Church Manual.)
The ministries board didn’t take any formal action on the executive committee’s recommendations during this meeting. Pastor DeSilva declared that they would be discussed briefly at the regular ministries board meeting in July, which would then make a recommendation about them to the business meeting that was scheduled for the following week in July.
Next: Call the Question
Religious
“Gentlemen,
“In regards to the Takoma Park Church issue, the Potomac Conference Executive Committee voted last night to take some actions that seek reconciliation between the two sides. However, the committee is not ready to articulate them. We will meet again in about two weeks to finalize these actions. We will officially inform you of the outcome as soon as we are ready. Thank you for your prayers and continue interest in seen this issue resolved. I wish you a blessed Sabbath.
“Jorge A. RamÃrez
“Vice President for Administration
“Potomac Conference”
On June 10, 2009 word began to circulate that the Potomac Conference leadership had called a meeting of Takoma Park’s Church Ministries Board to be held the following evening, June 11. The conference was setting the agenda which, though not announced, was assumed to pertain to Takoma Park’s governance problems. It was also announced that it was to be a closed meeting—only members of the ministries board were to be allowed in the room. The combination of the short notice and meeting closure excluded many members of the Group from attending. (Most of the Group’s inner circle held elected leadership positions, just not ones that came with a seat on the ministries board.) We were surprised and disappointed that the conference chose to so exclude those who had made the appeal from hearing their decision on the matter.
After an introduction by Pastor DeSilva the meeting was turned over to Elder Miller. He gave a brief history of the appeal process we had followed (as he saw it, anyway). He informed the ministries board that after each side had made their presentations to the executive committee the committee had come to some very general conclusions and appointed a six-person delegation of committee members plus one Church Manual expert to study the matter further and flesh out the general direction that the committee had decided on. Elder Miller stated that the Church Manual expert who had assisted them was Dr. Gary Paterson. (We later discovered that this consultation with Dr. Paterson was not quite as it was represented to the ministries board, but we’ll get to that in a later post.) Elder Miller went on to say that the executive committee had met again that afternoon in a special session to hear the report of the delegation and finalize its recommendations.
Before presenting the formal recommendations of the executive committee Elder Miller declared that the committee had concluded that there was some misunderstanding about its role and power, and went on to “clarify” the misunderstanding. He said that the executive committee’s only “engagement” with the activities of a local congregation is to advise and disband congregations. He further stated that there was a need to be cautious that the Church Manual not be violated in the process of trying to enforce the Church Manual. In this context he claimed that involving the executive committee in its advisory capacity with the business of the local church should only occur at the formal request of the whole church body. Elder Miller compared the situation to small groups requesting that items be placed on the agenda of a constituency meeting and being told that they must first have the request endorsed by a congregation. He went on to describe the “role and power” of the higher administrative levels of the Church. Elder Miller claimed that the union's only power was to provide clarification on decisions and recommendations of the conference and to disband conferences. He further claimed that the division has no power at all because it is simply an arm of the General Conference, and that the General Conference can only advise and disband unions. His conclusion to all of this was that the executive committee was making a few recommendations to the Takoma Park Church, but that the church business meeting, as the highest authority in the congregation, was within its power to refuse them.
Elder Miller also stated that once the business meeting of the church made a decision the church must “move ahead.” In this statement we saw yet another veiled jab at the Group—his assertion that small groups had no right to appeal to the executive committee having been the first one—but this statement conveniently ignored the fact that the circumstances surrounding the original approval of the change in governance did not constitute a legitimate decision by the business meeting of the church. See The Epic, Pt. 5 (posted 10-19-08) and Double Take (posted 4-5-10) for explanations of the illegitimacy of the decision.
On the subject of whether a “small group” could appeal to the executive committee, Elder Miller took this opportunity to attempt to distance himself from the statement in the Manual that if a church was dissatisfied with a decision of the conference that it could appeal to the union for clarification. On this occasion he interpreted this statement as referring to an entire congregations' dissatisfaction, not that of an unofficial group within the congregation. Under this interpretation a group like the Group would have no standing for appeal to the union unless a formal decision to appeal was voted by the congregation. In making this interpretation Elder Miller made it sound as if it had been the Group that first introduced this statement from the Manual into the equation and that we were wrong to have done so. Once again he was conveniently ignoring the historical fact that he was the one to introduce this statement and the procedure described therein in his letter to the Group on June 17, 2008. The Group’s appeal to the statement since that date had simply been an attempt to follow through with the process that Elder Miller himself had prescribed. Just to remind everyone of what was said on that occasion, here is the relevant excerpt from that letter (the full text can be found in The Epic, Pt. 25, posted 9-15-09):
“I understand that you did take a request to the board of elders, on April 23, to refer this back to the church in Business session. This was denied. The next appropriate step would have been to then contact the conference administration with your dispute, with the full knowledge of the Pastor and board of elders to contact the conference in an official capacity and request a meeting. If the decision then made would not have met your group’s approval it would then be referred to the Executive Committee. After the Executive Committee the manual states:
“‘Churches should look to the local conference for advice pertaining to the operating of the church or on questions arising from the Church Manual. If mutual understanding or agreement is not reached, the matter should be referred to the union for clarification.’ xxii Church Manual 2005 edition.
“We will be glad to work a process as understood in principle by Matthew 18 and as outlined in the Church Manual.”
After making this presentation (the substance of which we will analyze in a separate post), Elder Miller distributed printed copies of the executive committee’s formal recommendations and made comments on each one. The following is what he distributed.
“Executive Committee Approved Recommendations
“The assigned group of the Executive Committee voted to recommend:
“1. In affirmation of the Takoma Park Church:
“a. Your support of the Mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
“b. Your desire to impact and reach the local community for Christ
“c. Your desire for accountability to the Mission and Vision of the church.
“d. Your desire for spiritual reconciliation
“2. Recommendations:
“a. Although the Church Manual does not specify that another name is incompatible, the Church Ministries Board should be called the Church Board
“b. The Support and Accountability Board be renamed to the Support and Accountability Council and that it be Selected by the Nominating Committee and reports to the Church Board
“c. The primary role of the Church Board is to discuss and plan the evangelism outreach for the church. The newly renamed Church Board should study pp. 90-92 in the manual to make sure the Board functions as stated.
“d. That 15 key individuals from each group join together to fast and pray; to pray for reconciliation, unity, humility, and renewed energy to focus on what it is God has called the Takoma Park Church to be. This will not be a time to discuss issues.
“e. Items a, b, & c voted by the Takoma Park Church in Business Session.”
Elder Miller asserted that the Manual doesn’t provide any process for congregations to make local hires, and that he and the executive committee’s delegation of six had found no consistency in hiring practices among the congregations they had surveyed. His conclusion from this was that it was acceptable for congregations to manage local hires however they wished. Therefore, the executive committee had concluded that there was nothing wrong with the accountability board existing separately from the ministries board for the purpose of managing local personnel, but that its conclusions should be brought back to the ministries board. To clarify the fact that it did not/should not possess the power to act independently the executive committee recommended that it be called a “council” rather than a “board.”
Elder Miller reiterated that the executive committee could not legislate the recommended reconciliation, or any other part of their recommendations. It was really a point that he dwelt on with quite a bit of fervor, so much so that one really got the impression that perhaps he didn’t like the conclusions the executive committee had come to and was rather hoping that the church would reject them, but that is conjecture rather than provable fact.
During the question period Elder J asked a couple of questions significant enough to document. Fairly quickly into the question period Pastor DeSilva had asked whether the recommended changes to the accountability board were the result of the current configuration being wrong or whether the current system was fine and the changes were purely for conciliatory purposes. Elder Miller had replied that the answer was “both/and.” Pastor DeSilva had pushed the point further, leading Elder Miller to emphasize the conciliatory aspect of the recommendations. Elder J picked up on the ambiguity of this answer and asked Elder Miller flat out why the conference was recommending changes if there wasn’t actually anything wrong with the way things were. When Elder Miller hesitated in answering Elder J put an even finer point on the question, asking Elder Miller for a definitive answer on whether the new governance was in harmony with the Church Manual. Elder Miller responded that he didn’t have before him a list of the articulated responsibilities of the various entities of the new governance system, and therefore could not give a direct answer to the question. (We feel a need to point out here that in its presentation to the executive committee the Group had provided the very lists Elder Miller claimed to be ignorant of and that their deficiencies had been discussed at length in that meeting. Either he had willfully ignored that presentation, or he was in this instance telling a deliberate lie to the ministries board. As to why he would do such a thing, the only answer that makes sense to us is that the Group did indeed prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and he therefore couldn’t say we were wrong, but he did not want to say we were right because that would have meant the undoing of his grand schemes for change, so he chose to evade the question entirely.)
The other significant question Elder J asked was whether disciplinary action could be taken against the Group if the church considered the executive committee’s recommendations, declined them, and the Group continued to appeal. Elder Miller responded that reconciliation should be the goal, but that ultimately discipline was the church's right.
When asked how the ministries board could maintain a focus on ministry if its name was changed to “church board,” Elder Miller observed that meeting discipline was needed—the board simply needed to make a commitment to focus on important things rather than unimportant ones. To this end he recommended 1) that meeting agendas be circulated in advance so that board members could get their thoughts together ahead of time and then speak to an issue only once during a meeting rather than speaking up several times in a disorganized way, 2) that ministry issues be placed on the top of the agenda rather than the bottom so that if anything was to be shorted on time it would be less significant items, and 3) that the duties, responsibilities, and relationships of the church board and all subcommittees be articulated and written down so that everyone could understand what each entity was supposed to be focusing its effort on. (This the Group actually found to be sound advice. We can’t help noticing that it is also advice that could have been given and implemented for the betterment of Takoma Park’s governance without the interference of a consultant or deviation from the stipulations of the Church Manual.)
The ministries board didn’t take any formal action on the executive committee’s recommendations during this meeting. Pastor DeSilva declared that they would be discussed briefly at the regular ministries board meeting in July, which would then make a recommendation about them to the business meeting that was scheduled for the following week in July.
Next: Call the Question
Religious
Friday, June 11, 2010
Bullseye: Retrospective
This series has covered a lot of ground. Before we end it we feel a need to tie all these threads together and reach some conclusions. First, while Borden periodically appeals to the Bible in a vague way to support his philosophies he fails to actually build a sound case based on biblical exegesis. In fact, we have proven that his philosophies run contrary to biblical directives. This alone should be enough to warn off any Christian who sincerely believes in the concept of Sola Scriptura.
What, then, is his basis? Borden has essentially “Christianized” secular business philosophies. In the world of secular business, everything done by the firm as a corporate body or by the individual employee is to benefit the firm. Yes, the firm exists to provide some sort of product or service to a client base, but doing that and doing it well is simply the means to the end of making the firm profit and grow. In this pursuit of benefit to the firm its employees are not only negotiable, but expendable. If someone is underperforming or insufficiently skilled they get replaced by someone better, quicker, or more highly educated. Everything is driven by the needs of the firm, and if the market changes the firm changes to find new ways of meeting its needs. These goals and methods of reaching them are periodically reexamined, and if necessary redefined, by management. Sound familiar?
The problem with transposing secular business philosophy into a religious context is that there are two key differences between the secular and religious contexts that make the secular philosophies incompatible with the religious context. The first key difference is that the secular business context is all about the corporate entity. Borden tries to make the argument that the same is true in the religious context, but as we saw in Unit of Mission the religious context is all about the individual. Therefore, the secular approach of individual expendability is incompatible. The second key difference is that in the secular business context the mission and vision of the entity are created by the entity’s leadership and are subject to change at any time. In the religious context the mission and vision have been created by God and are nonnegotiable.
“Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
“Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar” (Proverbs 30:5, 6).
“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Revelation 22:18, 19).
So why would Christians be interested in unbiblical philosophies? To start with, not everything Borden says is bad. As described at the beginning of this series, even we were able to find some Things We Agree On. Ultimately, however, this mixture of truth and error just makes the whole thing that much more problematic, because people are lured in by the good and assume that if some of it is good it must all be good (see Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 19). The other lure we see is that these philosophies are trendy. It’s not a good excuse, but it is a common one. It is also a very old one. It takes very little imagination to hear all the arguments made in favor of adopting Paul Borden’s philosophies coming out of the mouths of the Israelites when they wanted a king, “The old ways were fine back in the days of Joshua, but we need to update. We need to be culturally relevant. If we had a king the unchurched people around us could relate to us better. The whole theocracy thing is really just a guideline, anyway. It’s OK if we adapt it to our local needs.” As we saw in Corporate Distinctiveness, God takes a rather dim view of such arguments.
We have often heard the critique that we are putting too much emphasis on the law, and ought to be practicing Christian love instead. But here’s the thing: the two are not mutually exclusive. Loving people doesn’t mean ignoring transgressions of God’s law. In fact, helping people to see and correct their errors is actually the most loving thing you can do for them because God does actually deal in absolutes. He saves us by grace through His substitutionary sacrifice, but that doesn’t annul His law, it is a fulfillment of that law. True acceptance of God’s sacrifice means turning away from sin and God does not excuse willful ignorance or disobedience of His law by those who claim to be His followers.
“Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God” (1 Peter 2:16).
God fully expects us (with His help) to live up to the laws, regulations, and standards He gives us. This includes everything in the Bible. As Seventh-day Adventists, we also believe that that includes everything laid out in the Spirit of Prophesy (unless it can be shown to conflict with the Bible). This encompasses the structure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which was instituted during the lifetime of Ellen White and with her approval under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, there are some who simply do not want to follow the rules, no matter how clearly they are laid out as being of divine origin and backing. Of such people God says, “Were I to write for him my laws by ten thousands, they would be regarded as a strange thing” (Hosea 8:12).
“The Lord has His appointed agencies; and if these are not discerned and respected by those who are connected with His work, if men feel free to disregard God's requirements, they must not be kept in positions of trust. They would not listen to counsel, nor to the commands of God through His appointed agencies. Like Saul, they would rush into a work that was never appointed them, and the mistakes they would make in following their human judgment would place the Israel of God where their Leader could not reveal Himself to them. Sacred things would become mingled with the common” (Youth’s Instructor, Nov. 17, 1898).
We write knowing full well that some of the minds reading this have already been closed on this subject. To those that have not we plead: let’s not abandon the expressed will of God in favor of unbiblical philosophies such as Paul Borden’s.
“Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8).
What, then, is his basis? Borden has essentially “Christianized” secular business philosophies. In the world of secular business, everything done by the firm as a corporate body or by the individual employee is to benefit the firm. Yes, the firm exists to provide some sort of product or service to a client base, but doing that and doing it well is simply the means to the end of making the firm profit and grow. In this pursuit of benefit to the firm its employees are not only negotiable, but expendable. If someone is underperforming or insufficiently skilled they get replaced by someone better, quicker, or more highly educated. Everything is driven by the needs of the firm, and if the market changes the firm changes to find new ways of meeting its needs. These goals and methods of reaching them are periodically reexamined, and if necessary redefined, by management. Sound familiar?
The problem with transposing secular business philosophy into a religious context is that there are two key differences between the secular and religious contexts that make the secular philosophies incompatible with the religious context. The first key difference is that the secular business context is all about the corporate entity. Borden tries to make the argument that the same is true in the religious context, but as we saw in Unit of Mission the religious context is all about the individual. Therefore, the secular approach of individual expendability is incompatible. The second key difference is that in the secular business context the mission and vision of the entity are created by the entity’s leadership and are subject to change at any time. In the religious context the mission and vision have been created by God and are nonnegotiable.
“Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
“Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar” (Proverbs 30:5, 6).
“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Revelation 22:18, 19).
So why would Christians be interested in unbiblical philosophies? To start with, not everything Borden says is bad. As described at the beginning of this series, even we were able to find some Things We Agree On. Ultimately, however, this mixture of truth and error just makes the whole thing that much more problematic, because people are lured in by the good and assume that if some of it is good it must all be good (see Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 19). The other lure we see is that these philosophies are trendy. It’s not a good excuse, but it is a common one. It is also a very old one. It takes very little imagination to hear all the arguments made in favor of adopting Paul Borden’s philosophies coming out of the mouths of the Israelites when they wanted a king, “The old ways were fine back in the days of Joshua, but we need to update. We need to be culturally relevant. If we had a king the unchurched people around us could relate to us better. The whole theocracy thing is really just a guideline, anyway. It’s OK if we adapt it to our local needs.” As we saw in Corporate Distinctiveness, God takes a rather dim view of such arguments.
We have often heard the critique that we are putting too much emphasis on the law, and ought to be practicing Christian love instead. But here’s the thing: the two are not mutually exclusive. Loving people doesn’t mean ignoring transgressions of God’s law. In fact, helping people to see and correct their errors is actually the most loving thing you can do for them because God does actually deal in absolutes. He saves us by grace through His substitutionary sacrifice, but that doesn’t annul His law, it is a fulfillment of that law. True acceptance of God’s sacrifice means turning away from sin and God does not excuse willful ignorance or disobedience of His law by those who claim to be His followers.
“Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God” (1 Peter 2:16).
God fully expects us (with His help) to live up to the laws, regulations, and standards He gives us. This includes everything in the Bible. As Seventh-day Adventists, we also believe that that includes everything laid out in the Spirit of Prophesy (unless it can be shown to conflict with the Bible). This encompasses the structure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which was instituted during the lifetime of Ellen White and with her approval under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, there are some who simply do not want to follow the rules, no matter how clearly they are laid out as being of divine origin and backing. Of such people God says, “Were I to write for him my laws by ten thousands, they would be regarded as a strange thing” (Hosea 8:12).
“The Lord has His appointed agencies; and if these are not discerned and respected by those who are connected with His work, if men feel free to disregard God's requirements, they must not be kept in positions of trust. They would not listen to counsel, nor to the commands of God through His appointed agencies. Like Saul, they would rush into a work that was never appointed them, and the mistakes they would make in following their human judgment would place the Israel of God where their Leader could not reveal Himself to them. Sacred things would become mingled with the common” (Youth’s Instructor, Nov. 17, 1898).
We write knowing full well that some of the minds reading this have already been closed on this subject. To those that have not we plead: let’s not abandon the expressed will of God in favor of unbiblical philosophies such as Paul Borden’s.
“Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8).
Monday, June 7, 2010
Bullseye: What the Potomac Conference Ignored
This post is dedicated to the aspects of Borden’s philosophy that, so long as they were going to go this route, the Potomac Conference should have adhered to. This is not to say that if done properly Borden’s strategies and philosophies would be acceptable, but by picking and choosing only parts of Borden’s system the Potomac Conference actually made a worse mess than if they had just gone for it “whole hog.”
“The family concept promotes the idea of clerical tenure. Pastors assume that if they have been loyal and faithful soldiers that such behavior over a long time both protects them, in terms of their positions, and gives them authority to speak to any crucial issue facing the judicatory. The controlling principle is not effectiveness in ministry, but tenure in the family” (p.25).
“A basic value that most held was that if a pastor was perceived as a 'loyal soldier' that pastor would always be helped by the region to find a new pastorate when she or he felt that one’s ministry was over with the current congregation. This help would be forthcoming whether the current congregation was healthy and growing or dysfunctional and dying” (p.48).
This sense of tenure and entitlement has nothing to do with the concept of the church as a family, but it is a problem to have ineffective pastors being endlessly shifted from one congregation to another in order to avoid having to face up to their ineffectiveness.
“Another implication of fulfilling our mission is that we are willing to confront pastors who are ineffective” (p.32).
“In our congregational consultations our goal was to establish the pastor as the leader of the congregation. At the same time the pastor had to be willing to be held accountable for specific missional goals. If the goals were met the pastor was given even more freedom to lead. If the goals were not met, then the pastor needed to realize that perhaps a different calling and vocation was in the pastor’s future” (p.97).
“Sometimes protecting congregational leaders meant meeting with pastors to remind them that, since they now had both the authority and responsibility for ministry, if goals were not met they were accountable and could not shift the blame to others” (p.98).
“We have now learned to set goals for the pastor to achieve in the next six months to a year with the understanding that if most of the goals are not achieved the pastor needs to consider leaving that congregation. I have found that by being clear up front, it is easier to discuss the future with the pastor if things do not go well” (p.111).
Here we arrive at the solution to the problem identified in the previous set of quotes. When a pastor has proven time after time that they are incapable of effectiveness in ministry it is time for a dismissal, not another relocation. And making excuses that attempt to shift blame should not be tolerated.
“This implementation piece is crucial in producing change. I believe all the other training we did would not have amounted to much if we had not held pastors accountable for actual changes through our cluster system” (p.51).
Borden also describes that after doing a congregational consultation one member of the consulting team would meet monthly with the church’s board to see that there was follow-through and provide guidance when issues came up. Making such an effort is the only way to get a true picture of the results of such a consultation, yet this has not been part of the Potomac Conference’s system.
"Conflict mediation assumes that the fighting parties will come to the process with some degree of integrity. In dysfunctional congregations the lack of spirituality inhibits people from possessing such integrity, plus the mediators are seeking resolution in what is already a dysfunctional situation. When the real issue of conflict is the control of the congregation (this issue is never the stated issue), those with the control will never give it up unless forced to do so. The nature and purpose of conflict mediation is to get believers to be reconciled, not deal with the control issues that cause congregations to remain dysfunctional" (p.72).
While in this context Borden is assuming that it is lay leaders who are coming to the table disingenuously and in an attempt to retain power and control, he paints a realistic picture of what is actually a two-way street. Pastors trying to hang on to their congregation and their status are every bit as likely (or even more likely) to play dirty in an attempt to retain or enhance their control during a transitional period as any lay member. This is why the Potomac Conference’s policy of treating concerns about changes in governance as interpersonal disputes to be reconciled is completely useless. Not only does this approach fail to consider any underlying nuances to the situation, it deliberately ignores the directly identified issue.
“We often protected the risk takers by informing the critics that these congregations and leaders were simply doing what we had encouraged” (p.99).
“The role of judicatory leaders, particularly if they are leading that change, is to protect those taking the risks” (p.100).
Once again, we do not agree with Borden’s theories of “protection,” but we do believe that if the conference is going to initiate a program they should own up to having done so and take responsibility for the outcomes.
“Large, healthy congregational thinking means that one leads by attraction, not compulsion” (p.63).
The reference to Borden’s pet theory that only large congregations have healthy ways of doing things notwithstanding, the Potomac Conference would do well to note that compulsion is never an effective way of convincing anyone to do anything.
“The family concept promotes the idea of clerical tenure. Pastors assume that if they have been loyal and faithful soldiers that such behavior over a long time both protects them, in terms of their positions, and gives them authority to speak to any crucial issue facing the judicatory. The controlling principle is not effectiveness in ministry, but tenure in the family” (p.25).
“A basic value that most held was that if a pastor was perceived as a 'loyal soldier' that pastor would always be helped by the region to find a new pastorate when she or he felt that one’s ministry was over with the current congregation. This help would be forthcoming whether the current congregation was healthy and growing or dysfunctional and dying” (p.48).
This sense of tenure and entitlement has nothing to do with the concept of the church as a family, but it is a problem to have ineffective pastors being endlessly shifted from one congregation to another in order to avoid having to face up to their ineffectiveness.
“Another implication of fulfilling our mission is that we are willing to confront pastors who are ineffective” (p.32).
“In our congregational consultations our goal was to establish the pastor as the leader of the congregation. At the same time the pastor had to be willing to be held accountable for specific missional goals. If the goals were met the pastor was given even more freedom to lead. If the goals were not met, then the pastor needed to realize that perhaps a different calling and vocation was in the pastor’s future” (p.97).
“Sometimes protecting congregational leaders meant meeting with pastors to remind them that, since they now had both the authority and responsibility for ministry, if goals were not met they were accountable and could not shift the blame to others” (p.98).
“We have now learned to set goals for the pastor to achieve in the next six months to a year with the understanding that if most of the goals are not achieved the pastor needs to consider leaving that congregation. I have found that by being clear up front, it is easier to discuss the future with the pastor if things do not go well” (p.111).
Here we arrive at the solution to the problem identified in the previous set of quotes. When a pastor has proven time after time that they are incapable of effectiveness in ministry it is time for a dismissal, not another relocation. And making excuses that attempt to shift blame should not be tolerated.
“This implementation piece is crucial in producing change. I believe all the other training we did would not have amounted to much if we had not held pastors accountable for actual changes through our cluster system” (p.51).
Borden also describes that after doing a congregational consultation one member of the consulting team would meet monthly with the church’s board to see that there was follow-through and provide guidance when issues came up. Making such an effort is the only way to get a true picture of the results of such a consultation, yet this has not been part of the Potomac Conference’s system.
"Conflict mediation assumes that the fighting parties will come to the process with some degree of integrity. In dysfunctional congregations the lack of spirituality inhibits people from possessing such integrity, plus the mediators are seeking resolution in what is already a dysfunctional situation. When the real issue of conflict is the control of the congregation (this issue is never the stated issue), those with the control will never give it up unless forced to do so. The nature and purpose of conflict mediation is to get believers to be reconciled, not deal with the control issues that cause congregations to remain dysfunctional" (p.72).
While in this context Borden is assuming that it is lay leaders who are coming to the table disingenuously and in an attempt to retain power and control, he paints a realistic picture of what is actually a two-way street. Pastors trying to hang on to their congregation and their status are every bit as likely (or even more likely) to play dirty in an attempt to retain or enhance their control during a transitional period as any lay member. This is why the Potomac Conference’s policy of treating concerns about changes in governance as interpersonal disputes to be reconciled is completely useless. Not only does this approach fail to consider any underlying nuances to the situation, it deliberately ignores the directly identified issue.
“We often protected the risk takers by informing the critics that these congregations and leaders were simply doing what we had encouraged” (p.99).
“The role of judicatory leaders, particularly if they are leading that change, is to protect those taking the risks” (p.100).
Once again, we do not agree with Borden’s theories of “protection,” but we do believe that if the conference is going to initiate a program they should own up to having done so and take responsibility for the outcomes.
“Large, healthy congregational thinking means that one leads by attraction, not compulsion” (p.63).
The reference to Borden’s pet theory that only large congregations have healthy ways of doing things notwithstanding, the Potomac Conference would do well to note that compulsion is never an effective way of convincing anyone to do anything.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Bullseye: The Function of a Church Leader
What does Borden promote as the role and function of a church leader? Since it is Borden we are talking about, by “church leader” we mean “pastor.”
“The cluster was to be viewed as an opportunistic platform to be used to earn the right to lead congregations through change” (p.47).
Borden’s theories of leadership involve pitting pastors against each other in competition for the attention of the regional leadership. Only those who embrace his philosophies and techniques and actively promote them in their congregations are deemed worthy of attention and assistance. Those who don’t get with the program are ignored.
“The second foundational principle is that leaders must be given the freedom to lead. God expects those who are given gifts, talents, skills, and a call to lead with excellence. This means that leaders must be given broad authority to take strong leadership roles over areas for which they are responsible. Those same leaders should also expect to provide specific, measurable, behavioral, and tangible goals relating to outcomes and then be held accountable for those goals. However, in the pursuit of these goals leaders should be given wide latitude, flexibility, and protection by those to whom the leader is accountable. Leaders also need the freedom to fail so they will be willing to risk. Obviously, too much failure indicates a lack of wisdom and leadership. On the other hand, without risk and failure the organization is doomed to eventual decline and death” (p.127).
Here we see a couple themes we have already addressed. The notions of power being concentrated in the hands of a single leader rather than a group and “protecting” pastors from differing opinions are both making encore appearances, and are still thoroughly invalid. Although Borden claims these beliefs about leadership are intended by God, he fails to cite a single biblical reference in support of this position. He mentions five Scripture references in the entire book (Ephesians 4:10-16, John 15, Isaiah 49:6, Romans 10:18-21, Revelation 1:12-16), but doesn’t actually quote any of them, and none of them support these positions on leadership. We bring all this up because, as unfounded as these positions are, Borden builds on them to support other positions regarding the role and function of pastors.
“At the beginning of an intervention our job was to create legitimate emotional imbalance among the pastors, leaders, and congregations within the region, both about the congregations and the region itself. We wanted people to say, ‘Enough is enough we will no longer tolerate the condition in which we find ourselves.’ However, once people reach that state, the next issue relates to what will be done to move from where they are to a preferable future. This is why with anecdote we always communicate the vision as the antidote to the status quo” (pp.68, 69).
“The first is that the leader must communicate the vision often, at the risk of redundancy. Second, the vision must not be presented as an option to the status quo. The status quo must be presented as unacceptable, with the vision an excellent option for a better and more effective way of living. Finally, the leader must believe enough in God and God’s people to assume that the vision can be accomplished” (p.67).
“A second strategy in leading through vision is painting the status quo as unacceptable rather than as an alternate to the vision. A good leader recognizes that she or he must help the group see that the current situation is untenable. If the group does nothing about its current situation it will get worse” (p.68).
Another brick goes up in the wall. Because (in Borden’s mind) broad power invested in the pastor cannot be challenged, the congregation is left with two options, 1) embrace the vision presented by the pastor or 2) maintain the status quo. This is really only one option because, according to the unchallengeable word of the pastor, the status quo is “unacceptable” and “untenable.”
“I see my primary task as Executive Minister to be the keeper and caster of the vision and mission” (p.67).
“Visionary leaders must stay in touch with key people and pastors, but they cannot function as chaplains, problem solvers, or managers dealing with the day to day issues of regional life” (p.67).
“As a result lay leaders realized that the pastor’s job is not to manage congregational ministries but lead them” (p.108).
Here we reach the climax of Borden’s philosophy on leadership. Not only is the pastor invested with broad, unchallengeable power to lay out to the congregation the way it must go, he is also designated as the originator, decider, and interpreter of what that way is. As such he is above dealing with “day to day issues” and has only to “stay in touch with key people” to ensure that they are indeed carrying out his will for the church. Notice that we refer to “his will” rather than “God’s will,” as we have yet to see any evidence that God is in any way involved in this.
Let’s review. First, the pastor creates (or “casts”) the vision. Second, he decides how that vision translates into measurable goals. Third, he is given broad authority to pursue those goals by whatever means he chooses, without anyone being permitted to second-guess either the goals or the strategies. Third, the pastor is not required to engage in any day to day ministry, only to keep in contact with those who are doing the work for him. Finally, at the end of a predetermined period of time a small group of people is supposed to determine whether he accomplished what he said he would—but, as we have already discussed, this aspect of the system is incompatible with Adventist congregations. The bottom line is that any pastor (particularly an Adventist pastor) who undertook to function under this system could justly be called a dictator, and a lazy one at that.
But there is a still bigger issue here. Never, never, never does God instruct individuals to submit their understanding of His will for them to the judgment or interpretation of anyone else. God doesn’t give exclusive knowledge of His will to pastors or other church leaders. Every single member is expected to seek and find God’s will for themselves. The only true role of the pastor in this regard is to urge all members to be diligent in their seeking for understanding.
“All must see and understand their duty for themselves, after seeking wisdom from God. He is the only one to whom you may commit your soul for safe-keeping. If you come to Him in faith, he will speak His mysteries to you personally. You may sit together in heavenly places with Christ. We may individually understand God's will; we may know for ourselves what He would have us do; for He will direct us if we will consent to be consecrated and humble in heart before him. Our hearts will oft burn within us as One draws nigh to commune with us as He did with Enoch. ‘Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge.’ We need Him who is the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (Manuscript Releases, Vol. 6, p.381).
“In these last days ministers need to guard the churches against the dangers arising from the acceptance of fanciful and erroneous theories by preaching the plain truths of the Word regarding individual duty and responsibility. The people of God are to be educated to hate and forsake all unrighteousness if they would be prepared for a place in the kingdom of heaven. Teach that the fruits of repentance are to be seen in the life in deeds of righteousness. By lives of faith and devotion, and reliance upon the Word of God as the foundation of all faith, by acts of unselfishness and sincerity, teach them to make known the saving grace of Christ” (Review and Herald, February 18, 1909 par. 1).
So what does the Bible have to say about the duties of church leaders?
“You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance.
“Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
“Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.
“Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say 'No' to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.
“These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you” (Titus 2).
The list we derive is profound in its simplicity: 1) teach sound doctrine and upright living, 2) encourage, and 3) rebuke. Nowhere in this list (or any other to be found in the Bible) is any item pertaining to the wielding of power. This is because it is not a duty of the pastor to hold or exercise any power beyond the forcefulness of the proven Word of God which he is to deliver faithfully and in abundance to the congregation and the community. And the need for this work of teaching sound doctrine is not to be underestimated.
“The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people, should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves, to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition, and worship they know not what.
“I have been shown that many who profess to have a knowledge of present truth, know not what they believe. They do not understand the evidences of their faith. They have no just appreciation of the work for the present time. When the time of trial shall come, there are men now preaching to others, who will find, upon examining the positions they hold, that there are many things for which they can give no satisfactory reason. Until thus tested, they knew not their great ignorance.
“And there are many in the church who take it for granted that they understand what they believe, but, until controversy arises, they do not know their own weakness. When separated from those of like faith, and compelled to stand singly and alone to explain their belief, they will be surprised to see how confused are their ideas of what they had accepted as truth. Certain it is that there has been among us a departure from the living God, and a turning to men, putting human wisdom in place of divine” (Gospel Workers, pp. 298, 299).
The encouragement aspect of these duties is quite straightforward.
“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me” (Matthew 25:35, 36).
The rebuking, on the other hand, needs a somewhat more detailed examination.
“Jesus said to his disciples: ‘Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves.
“‘If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him’" (Luke 17:1-4).
“Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.
“I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.
“Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure” (1 Timothy 5:20-22).
“Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent” (Revelation 3:19).
“There will ever be a spirit to rise up against the reproof of sins and wrongs. But the voice of reproof should not be hushed because of this. Those whom God has set apart as ministers of righteousness have solemn responsibilities laid upon them to reprove the sins of the people. Paul commanded Titus, ‘These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.’ There are ever those who will despise the one who dares to reprove sin. But when required, reproof must be given. Paul directs Titus to rebuke a certain class sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. And how shall the reproof be given? Let the apostle answer: ‘With all long-suffering and doctrine.’ The one at fault must be shown that his course is not in harmony with the Word of God. But never should the wrongs of God's people be passed by indifferently. Those who faithfully discharge their unpleasant duties under a sense of their accountability to God, will receive his blessing” (Signs of the Times, Sept. 16, 1880).
“To exalt a minister as perfection because he has not displeased any one by reproving errors, not only brings a snare upon the minister, but brings disaster upon the people. He who does not hurt the spiritual self-complacency of the people is almost deified by them, while a devoted, faithful servant of God, who lays bare the errors of the church-members, is supposed to be defective, because he does not see what they suppose are their personal merits. He reproves wrongs which really exist, and this is counted an indignity, and his authority and instruction are cast aside and trodden under foot of men. These extremes in the way the people look upon ministers are found among the professed children of God; and who will now examine their hearts, and tenderly, earnestly and faithfully set these things in order?” (Review and Herald, July 25, 1893).
What more can we say? Once again we see a stark contrast between the philosophies of Paul Borden and the requirements of Scripture.
“The cluster was to be viewed as an opportunistic platform to be used to earn the right to lead congregations through change” (p.47).
Borden’s theories of leadership involve pitting pastors against each other in competition for the attention of the regional leadership. Only those who embrace his philosophies and techniques and actively promote them in their congregations are deemed worthy of attention and assistance. Those who don’t get with the program are ignored.
“The second foundational principle is that leaders must be given the freedom to lead. God expects those who are given gifts, talents, skills, and a call to lead with excellence. This means that leaders must be given broad authority to take strong leadership roles over areas for which they are responsible. Those same leaders should also expect to provide specific, measurable, behavioral, and tangible goals relating to outcomes and then be held accountable for those goals. However, in the pursuit of these goals leaders should be given wide latitude, flexibility, and protection by those to whom the leader is accountable. Leaders also need the freedom to fail so they will be willing to risk. Obviously, too much failure indicates a lack of wisdom and leadership. On the other hand, without risk and failure the organization is doomed to eventual decline and death” (p.127).
Here we see a couple themes we have already addressed. The notions of power being concentrated in the hands of a single leader rather than a group and “protecting” pastors from differing opinions are both making encore appearances, and are still thoroughly invalid. Although Borden claims these beliefs about leadership are intended by God, he fails to cite a single biblical reference in support of this position. He mentions five Scripture references in the entire book (Ephesians 4:10-16, John 15, Isaiah 49:6, Romans 10:18-21, Revelation 1:12-16), but doesn’t actually quote any of them, and none of them support these positions on leadership. We bring all this up because, as unfounded as these positions are, Borden builds on them to support other positions regarding the role and function of pastors.
“At the beginning of an intervention our job was to create legitimate emotional imbalance among the pastors, leaders, and congregations within the region, both about the congregations and the region itself. We wanted people to say, ‘Enough is enough we will no longer tolerate the condition in which we find ourselves.’ However, once people reach that state, the next issue relates to what will be done to move from where they are to a preferable future. This is why with anecdote we always communicate the vision as the antidote to the status quo” (pp.68, 69).
“The first is that the leader must communicate the vision often, at the risk of redundancy. Second, the vision must not be presented as an option to the status quo. The status quo must be presented as unacceptable, with the vision an excellent option for a better and more effective way of living. Finally, the leader must believe enough in God and God’s people to assume that the vision can be accomplished” (p.67).
“A second strategy in leading through vision is painting the status quo as unacceptable rather than as an alternate to the vision. A good leader recognizes that she or he must help the group see that the current situation is untenable. If the group does nothing about its current situation it will get worse” (p.68).
Another brick goes up in the wall. Because (in Borden’s mind) broad power invested in the pastor cannot be challenged, the congregation is left with two options, 1) embrace the vision presented by the pastor or 2) maintain the status quo. This is really only one option because, according to the unchallengeable word of the pastor, the status quo is “unacceptable” and “untenable.”
“I see my primary task as Executive Minister to be the keeper and caster of the vision and mission” (p.67).
“Visionary leaders must stay in touch with key people and pastors, but they cannot function as chaplains, problem solvers, or managers dealing with the day to day issues of regional life” (p.67).
“As a result lay leaders realized that the pastor’s job is not to manage congregational ministries but lead them” (p.108).
Here we reach the climax of Borden’s philosophy on leadership. Not only is the pastor invested with broad, unchallengeable power to lay out to the congregation the way it must go, he is also designated as the originator, decider, and interpreter of what that way is. As such he is above dealing with “day to day issues” and has only to “stay in touch with key people” to ensure that they are indeed carrying out his will for the church. Notice that we refer to “his will” rather than “God’s will,” as we have yet to see any evidence that God is in any way involved in this.
Let’s review. First, the pastor creates (or “casts”) the vision. Second, he decides how that vision translates into measurable goals. Third, he is given broad authority to pursue those goals by whatever means he chooses, without anyone being permitted to second-guess either the goals or the strategies. Third, the pastor is not required to engage in any day to day ministry, only to keep in contact with those who are doing the work for him. Finally, at the end of a predetermined period of time a small group of people is supposed to determine whether he accomplished what he said he would—but, as we have already discussed, this aspect of the system is incompatible with Adventist congregations. The bottom line is that any pastor (particularly an Adventist pastor) who undertook to function under this system could justly be called a dictator, and a lazy one at that.
But there is a still bigger issue here. Never, never, never does God instruct individuals to submit their understanding of His will for them to the judgment or interpretation of anyone else. God doesn’t give exclusive knowledge of His will to pastors or other church leaders. Every single member is expected to seek and find God’s will for themselves. The only true role of the pastor in this regard is to urge all members to be diligent in their seeking for understanding.
“All must see and understand their duty for themselves, after seeking wisdom from God. He is the only one to whom you may commit your soul for safe-keeping. If you come to Him in faith, he will speak His mysteries to you personally. You may sit together in heavenly places with Christ. We may individually understand God's will; we may know for ourselves what He would have us do; for He will direct us if we will consent to be consecrated and humble in heart before him. Our hearts will oft burn within us as One draws nigh to commune with us as He did with Enoch. ‘Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge.’ We need Him who is the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (Manuscript Releases, Vol. 6, p.381).
“In these last days ministers need to guard the churches against the dangers arising from the acceptance of fanciful and erroneous theories by preaching the plain truths of the Word regarding individual duty and responsibility. The people of God are to be educated to hate and forsake all unrighteousness if they would be prepared for a place in the kingdom of heaven. Teach that the fruits of repentance are to be seen in the life in deeds of righteousness. By lives of faith and devotion, and reliance upon the Word of God as the foundation of all faith, by acts of unselfishness and sincerity, teach them to make known the saving grace of Christ” (Review and Herald, February 18, 1909 par. 1).
So what does the Bible have to say about the duties of church leaders?
“You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance.
“Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
“Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.
“Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say 'No' to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.
“These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you” (Titus 2).
The list we derive is profound in its simplicity: 1) teach sound doctrine and upright living, 2) encourage, and 3) rebuke. Nowhere in this list (or any other to be found in the Bible) is any item pertaining to the wielding of power. This is because it is not a duty of the pastor to hold or exercise any power beyond the forcefulness of the proven Word of God which he is to deliver faithfully and in abundance to the congregation and the community. And the need for this work of teaching sound doctrine is not to be underestimated.
“The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people, should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves, to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition, and worship they know not what.
“I have been shown that many who profess to have a knowledge of present truth, know not what they believe. They do not understand the evidences of their faith. They have no just appreciation of the work for the present time. When the time of trial shall come, there are men now preaching to others, who will find, upon examining the positions they hold, that there are many things for which they can give no satisfactory reason. Until thus tested, they knew not their great ignorance.
“And there are many in the church who take it for granted that they understand what they believe, but, until controversy arises, they do not know their own weakness. When separated from those of like faith, and compelled to stand singly and alone to explain their belief, they will be surprised to see how confused are their ideas of what they had accepted as truth. Certain it is that there has been among us a departure from the living God, and a turning to men, putting human wisdom in place of divine” (Gospel Workers, pp. 298, 299).
The encouragement aspect of these duties is quite straightforward.
“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me” (Matthew 25:35, 36).
The rebuking, on the other hand, needs a somewhat more detailed examination.
“Jesus said to his disciples: ‘Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves.
“‘If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him’" (Luke 17:1-4).
“Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.
“I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.
“Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure” (1 Timothy 5:20-22).
“Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent” (Revelation 3:19).
“There will ever be a spirit to rise up against the reproof of sins and wrongs. But the voice of reproof should not be hushed because of this. Those whom God has set apart as ministers of righteousness have solemn responsibilities laid upon them to reprove the sins of the people. Paul commanded Titus, ‘These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.’ There are ever those who will despise the one who dares to reprove sin. But when required, reproof must be given. Paul directs Titus to rebuke a certain class sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. And how shall the reproof be given? Let the apostle answer: ‘With all long-suffering and doctrine.’ The one at fault must be shown that his course is not in harmony with the Word of God. But never should the wrongs of God's people be passed by indifferently. Those who faithfully discharge their unpleasant duties under a sense of their accountability to God, will receive his blessing” (Signs of the Times, Sept. 16, 1880).
“To exalt a minister as perfection because he has not displeased any one by reproving errors, not only brings a snare upon the minister, but brings disaster upon the people. He who does not hurt the spiritual self-complacency of the people is almost deified by them, while a devoted, faithful servant of God, who lays bare the errors of the church-members, is supposed to be defective, because he does not see what they suppose are their personal merits. He reproves wrongs which really exist, and this is counted an indignity, and his authority and instruction are cast aside and trodden under foot of men. These extremes in the way the people look upon ministers are found among the professed children of God; and who will now examine their hearts, and tenderly, earnestly and faithfully set these things in order?” (Review and Herald, July 25, 1893).
What more can we say? Once again we see a stark contrast between the philosophies of Paul Borden and the requirements of Scripture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)