Us and Them

In the Epic, Pt. 61 we promised a discussion of appeal protocol and the involvement of experts from the upper echelons of denominational administration in the business of local congregations. (This was in the context of Pastor DeSilva asserting before the meeting with the conference executive committee that the Group would not have the right to appeal to the union if it was unsatisfied with the executive committee’s response and his talking about how “appalled” he had been to receive the letters of Elders Howard, Parmenter, and Bediako.)

In the Epic, Pt. 69 we promised to explain how the description of Dr. Paterson’s involvement in the formation of the recommendations of the executive committee had been misrepresented by Elder Miller and to provide an analysis of Elder Miller’s presentation to the ministries board.

In the Epic, Pt. 70 we promised to describe the changes in the most recent version of the Church Manual which clarify who has the right to appeal to a union.

Now that all of the pieces of the story bearing on this subject have been told (the subject being the interplay between the local congregation and higher levels of church administration) we are ready to keep these promises and present a consideration of this matter.

It will make most sense if we start with Dr. Paterson’s involvement with the executive committee’s recommendations to the Takoma Park Church. In a conversation some time after the executive committee’s recommendations had been presented Dr. Paterson expressed surprise when members of the Group told him that he had been cited as an authority consulted by the delegation of six from the executive committee as they prepared their recommendations. He declared that he had had no formal discussions with anyone from the conference on the subject of Takoma Park. The only interaction he recalled was an informal chat with Pastor Netteburg and a few others in a restaurant, during which he and Pastor Netteburg discussed what enforcement mechanisms the Church Manual grants to the various levels of the church organization. In that discussion the conclusion that had been reached was that the enforcement mechanism possessed by each level of the church organization is that of disbanding the organization below it.

When Elder Miller had made his presentation to the ministries board his assertion had been that the only power possessed by each level of the church organization was to disband the organization below it. This is a significant difference because in the context of the Church Manual power and enforcement mechanisms are not synonymous. For example, the Church Manual specifies that Bible Instructors may only hold local church office if the conference grants them special permission to do so. (This is to allow them to focus on the particular task of Bible instruction rather than getting caught up in other tasks relating to the local church.) This is a power granted by the Church Manual to the conference. The Manual does not specify any penalty or remedial action (enforcement mechanism) to be used in the event that a local church goes ahead and elects a Bible Instructor to local church office without the conference’s approval (see p.34). The Manual assumes that honorable church members would choose to follow the rules laid out without the need for a penalty to enforce compliance. Therefore, the only scenarios for which the Manual prescribes enforcement mechanisms are those that involve dramatic, flagrant disobedience that calls for severe measures (hence the only enforcement mechanism being disbanding).

Now that we have established that the powers of the various levels of the denominational administration are not so limited as Elder Miller described we need to address what the real boundaries of their powers are. For our purposes we are going to focus that question on the powers pertaining to governance and the Church Manual. We have already discussed the origins of the Church Manual’s authority and the force of its prescriptions in Power (posted 8-28-09), In His Own Eyes (posted 1-7-10), and most recently Bullseye: Corporate Distinctiveness (posted 4-30-10). Rather than repeating those in-depth examinations of the subject we will simply summarize that the authority of the General Conference supercedes that of any other level of the church, including the local congregation. Therefore, any directives generated by the General Conference (which include the Church Manual) are considered binding to the local congregation.

In his presentation to the ministries board Elder Miller had represented the power of the business meeting of the local church as being all but absolute. In reality, there are some limitations. The most notable of these is that the local business meeting cannot adopt any policy or doctrine which is contrary to those held by the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church. An example of such a decision which the Group has previously used is that the local church business meeting cannot decide to stop remitting tithe to the conference. To do so would be to declare that it no longer wished to be a Seventh-day Adventist congregation, at which point the conference would have legitimate cause to utilize its enforcement mechanism and disband the congregation. Conversely, there is one matter on which the business meeting has power which the conference is not permitted to exercise. This is the power of deciding issues of discipline. (Discipline is a subject that has "nipped at the heels" of this conflict for some time. We will be addressing it separately in the not-too-distant future.) But again, this power is granted to the local church by the Church Manual, which is a product of the General Conference. It is therefore through the authority of the General Conference that the local church exercises this power—not through the possession of some absolute authority of its own.

So what about this appeal process? The 17th edition of the Church Manual (voted by the 2005 GC Session) puts it this way, “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” (p.xxii). The meaning of “churches” in this context, and who is responsible to do the referring to the union, are the points of interpretation which could not be agreed upon by the experts consulted about the Group’s situation.

The 18th edition of the Church Manual (voted by the 2010 GC Session) rephrases the statement, “Church officers and leaders, pastors, and members should consult with their conference for advice pertaining to the operating of their congregation or on questions arising from the Church Manual. If they do not reach mutual understanding, they should consult with their union conference/mission for clarification” (p.20).

There are several points about these statements that should be noted. First, neither edition expressly states (or even implies) that when questions arise regarding the Church Manual that a protocol based on Matthew 18 must be followed. The first step called for once it is clear that a question exists is for the questioning parties to consult the conference. Therefore, all of the extra steps that the Potomac Conference insisted on in our situation had no basis in official Church policy. Second, it is the Church Manual, which is an expression of the will of the General Conference, that delegates primary responsibility for answering questions about the Church Manual to the local conferences. This is a practical measure taken simply because the General Conference couldn’t possibly directly address every single question that might arise in local congregations regarding the Church Manual. However, the simple fact that the General Conference exercises its authority to delegate this task to the local conference means that they also have the authority to take back the responsibility should they see that a particular situation called for such intervention. Furthermore, since the Church Manual originates from the General Conference they are the foremost experts on its content and interpretation. In short, despite Pastor DeSilva’s having been appalled at their decision, there was nothing wrong with the five leaders within the General Conference having written the letters of interpretation that they did. Finally, the 18th edition’s use of “church officers and leaders, pastors, and members” in place of the 17th edition’s “churches” makes it clear that whether or not associations like the Group had standing to make appeals to their union before, they very definitely have that right now.

To summarize, each level of organization has its own legitimate sphere of action. Within the local church the business meeting is the highest authority. So long as it is acting within its designated parameters and all concerned are satisfied that it is doing its job in the way that it ought to there is no reason for any other level of the organization to be involved with its activities. Should questions or concerns arise regarding either the processes or the decisions of the local church the questions or concerns are to be taken to the conference. The conference is to give answers to the best of its ability. Should those answers not provide sufficient illumination on the matter the question or concern is to be taken on to the union. Once a clear answer is received the church is expected to act in accordance with it.

These relationships and processes are defined by the Church Manual. As previously stated, the Church Manual is a product of the General Conference, which is the highest authority within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It defines the relationships between all other levels of the organization and delegates to them the power that they wield, which means that the General Conference gets the final word on the interpretation and use of that delegated power.