"The Church in the Wilderness"
The organization of "the church in the wilderness," the people of Israel under the exodus movement, provided for the distribution of responsibility, the sharing of burdens, and the unity of the whole. Individuals were associated together in the small group, the small groups were joined in larger, these into still larger associations, and the larger organizations were united in the general. Before the people of Israel came to Sinai, Jethro, priest of Midian, visited their camp and saw the burdens pressing upon Moses. He said to Moses: —
"Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee. . . . Provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee." Ex. 18:19-22.
The spirit that was in Moses, of wisdom and judgment and good sense, led him to accept plans that provided for organization of the work. As stated in "Patriarchs and Prophets:"—
The Lord had greatly honored Moses, and had wrought wonders by his hand; but the fact that he had been chosen to instruct others did not lead him to conclude that he himself needed no instruction. The chosen leader of Israel listened gladly to the suggestions of the godly priest of Midian, and adopted his plan as a wise arrangement.— Page 301.
At Sinai, under the Lord's direct instruction through his prophet, the organization was further perfected. As the work developed, showing need of additional features of organization, the Lord gave instruction that additional helpers should be chosen to discharge the duties of oversight that necessarily come wherever multitudes are associated in a common work. After departing from Sinai, Moses found the burdens too heavy, and begged for release. Then the Lord said: —
"Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone." Num. 11: 16, 17.
Wherever the Lord has called men to a sacred work, he has given them the spirit to organize their forces for the greatest efficiency and harmony of effort. Of these features in Israel the following paragraph gives the briefest summary : —
The government of Israel was characterized by the most thorough organization, wonderful alike for its completeness and its simplicity. The order so strikingly displayed in the perfection and arrangement of all God's created works was manifest in the Hebrew economy. God was the center of authority and government, the sovereign of Israel. Moses stood as their visible leader, by God's appointment, to administer the laws in his name. From the elders of the tribes a council of seventy was afterward chosen to assist Moses in the general affairs of the nation. Next came the priests, who consulted the Lord in the sanctuary. Chiefs, or princes, ruled over the tribes. Under these were "captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens;" and, lastly, officers who might be employed for special duties.—"Patriarchs and Prophets," page 374.
This is a divinely set object-lesson of the importance of the orderly arrangement of the affairs of the cause of God in these last days: —
The travels of the children of Israel are faithfully described; the deliverance which the Lord wrought for them, their perfect organization and special order, their sin in murmuring against Moses and thus against God, their transgressions, their rebellions, their punishments, their carcasses strewn in the wilderness because of their unwillingness to submit to God's wise arrangements,— this faithful picture is hung up before us as a warning lest we follow their example of disobedience, and fall like them. . . .
"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall." Has God changed from a God of order ? — No; he is the same in the present dispensation as in the former. Paul says, "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." He is as particular now as then. And he designs that we should learn lessons of order and organization from the perfect order instituted in the days of Moses, for the benefit of the children of Israel.—"Testimonies for the Church," Vol. I, pages 652, 653.
Often in Israel men rose in rebellion against the manner in which the Lord led his people forward. The disaffection led by Korah, Dathan, and Abiram illustrates the basis on which elements of opposition, seeking supremacy to carry out their own ideas, have often made complaints against order. Those chosen to the responsibility of leading, whether in local or general organizations, hold no position as a matter of lordship over others, but rather as servants of all, under the Lord. It is the Lord's arrangement for maintaining the orderly conduct of his work.
Though Moses and Aaron had assumed nothing of themselves, the cry was raised by Korah, Dathan, and Abiram that they were usurping authority. The charge was, "Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?" Num. 16: 3. They preached an individualism and independence that ignored the divine principles of fellowship and mutual relationships in the church of God. Every discordant element in the camp was organized under the leadership of these men to strike at the divinely approved organization which stood in the way of their efforts to secure control of the movement and divert it from God's purpose. If these men could not have their own way, they were determined to wreck the movement. The Lord vindicated his truth and his servants, and saved his people, though many perished in apostasy.
W. A. Spicer
(Review and Herald, April 1, 1909)
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Gospel Order, Pt. 1
What is the proper relationship between the individual church member and the church organization?
This is a question we would like to explore. We begin with an eight part series of articles entitled “Gospel Order” which were published in the Review and Herald in 1909. These articles discuss the examples of organization seen throughout the Bible and the lessons to be learned from them:
(MARCH 25, 1909)
Gospel Order — No. 1
The Divine Principle of Organization
The Lord is a God of order. All his works reveal the perfection and simplicity of divine organization, "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 1 Cor. 14:33.
The church of Christ is to reveal on earth the order and harmony of the kingdom of heaven. The "Great Shepherd of the sheep" leads the flock of God. The closer the members of the flock press to the Shepherd, the closer do they press together. And the counsel of the Lord through the spirit of prophecy to all believers just now is, "Press together, press together."
The Lord led the church of the exodus out of Egypt, and by the gift of prophecy organized it as one body to represent the unity of his work. He led forth the church of apostolic days, as one body, its organization being developed according to the need, under the instructions of the gift of prophecy placed in the church. In this advent movement he has raised up a church to bear the final gospel message to the world. He has organized the movement as one united body, giving instruction by the gift of prophecy placed in the church.
There were in "the church in the wilderness" those who rebelled against the organization that maintained unity and order. There were those in apostolic days who worked against the order and harmony of the church. There have now and then appeared in our own midst those who have opposed the order and organization established in the church in harmony with the Word of God and the counsel of the spirit of prophecy. But all along — in the wilderness, in apostolic days, in these last days — it has been God's order and God's leadership in the church that has been set aside.
"God is not the author of confusion." He is the author of order. Every thought in divine organization is to secure to his children the greatest liberty to develop a godly character. Harmony with God's order is Christian liberty. "So long as all created beings acknowledged the allegiance of love," says the spirit of prophecy, "there was perfect harmony throughout the universe of God."
Lucifer is the author of confusion. Coveting the supremacy that belonged to Christ, he charged that the order and harmony of heaven imposed a restraint upon the liberty of the angels. So came rebellion in heaven. "It was pride and ambition that prompted Lucifer to complain of the government of God, and to seek the overthrow of the order which had been established in heaven. Since his fall it has been his object to infuse the same spirit . . . into the minds of men."— "Patriarchs and Prophets," page 403. His principles make for separation and disorder.
If it be but secular work in which numbers of people are engaged together, the value of system and organization is universally recognized by the thoughtful and successful. Much more is organization to be valued in God's work, in which "all things" are to be "done decently and in order." I Cor. 14:40.
The organization of believers is no arbitrary or mechanical arrangement, but the natural and spiritual expression of Christian fellowship in service, a means of personal strength and blessing to the individual, and a sign of the "unity of the Spirit" among the members making up the "one body." The spirit of prophecy says: —
“Angels work harmoniously. Perfect order characterizes all their movements. The more closely we imitate the harmony and order of the angelic host, the more successful will be the efforts of these heavenly agents in our behalf. . . . Those who have the unction from on high, will in all their efforts encourage order, discipline, and union of action, and then the angels of God can co-operate with them. But never, never will these heavenly messengers place their indorsement upon irregularity, disorganization, and disorder. All these evils are the result of Satan's efforts to weaken our forces, to destroy courage, and prevent successful action. ... It is his studied effort to lead professed Christians just as far from heaven's arrangement as he can; therefore he deceives even the professed people of God, and makes them believe that order and discipline are enemies to spirituality. . . . All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery.— "Testimonies for the Church," Vol. I, page 649.
But all the Bible history shows that thorough organization is one of the heavenly appointed safeguards against popery. This is why those who have risen in rebellion against the truth, to lead away disciples after themselves, have always struck at organization. This has been as a hedge round about the people of God, securing the protection of the angelic host.
The details of organization may vary according to conditions and work, but ever as God has called his church together there has appeared in it the spiritual gift of order and of government, the spirit that rules in heaven. Harmony with God's truth and work for the time has been shown by orderly and harmonious co-operation with the body of believers. And all along the enemy who began his attack on organization in heaven, in order to detach the angels from the ranks and lead them astray, has worked against the organization of the body of believers on earth, in order to divide and scatter.
W. A. Spicer
This is a question we would like to explore. We begin with an eight part series of articles entitled “Gospel Order” which were published in the Review and Herald in 1909. These articles discuss the examples of organization seen throughout the Bible and the lessons to be learned from them:
(MARCH 25, 1909)
Gospel Order — No. 1
The Divine Principle of Organization
The Lord is a God of order. All his works reveal the perfection and simplicity of divine organization, "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 1 Cor. 14:33.
The church of Christ is to reveal on earth the order and harmony of the kingdom of heaven. The "Great Shepherd of the sheep" leads the flock of God. The closer the members of the flock press to the Shepherd, the closer do they press together. And the counsel of the Lord through the spirit of prophecy to all believers just now is, "Press together, press together."
The Lord led the church of the exodus out of Egypt, and by the gift of prophecy organized it as one body to represent the unity of his work. He led forth the church of apostolic days, as one body, its organization being developed according to the need, under the instructions of the gift of prophecy placed in the church. In this advent movement he has raised up a church to bear the final gospel message to the world. He has organized the movement as one united body, giving instruction by the gift of prophecy placed in the church.
There were in "the church in the wilderness" those who rebelled against the organization that maintained unity and order. There were those in apostolic days who worked against the order and harmony of the church. There have now and then appeared in our own midst those who have opposed the order and organization established in the church in harmony with the Word of God and the counsel of the spirit of prophecy. But all along — in the wilderness, in apostolic days, in these last days — it has been God's order and God's leadership in the church that has been set aside.
"God is not the author of confusion." He is the author of order. Every thought in divine organization is to secure to his children the greatest liberty to develop a godly character. Harmony with God's order is Christian liberty. "So long as all created beings acknowledged the allegiance of love," says the spirit of prophecy, "there was perfect harmony throughout the universe of God."
Lucifer is the author of confusion. Coveting the supremacy that belonged to Christ, he charged that the order and harmony of heaven imposed a restraint upon the liberty of the angels. So came rebellion in heaven. "It was pride and ambition that prompted Lucifer to complain of the government of God, and to seek the overthrow of the order which had been established in heaven. Since his fall it has been his object to infuse the same spirit . . . into the minds of men."— "Patriarchs and Prophets," page 403. His principles make for separation and disorder.
If it be but secular work in which numbers of people are engaged together, the value of system and organization is universally recognized by the thoughtful and successful. Much more is organization to be valued in God's work, in which "all things" are to be "done decently and in order." I Cor. 14:40.
The organization of believers is no arbitrary or mechanical arrangement, but the natural and spiritual expression of Christian fellowship in service, a means of personal strength and blessing to the individual, and a sign of the "unity of the Spirit" among the members making up the "one body." The spirit of prophecy says: —
“Angels work harmoniously. Perfect order characterizes all their movements. The more closely we imitate the harmony and order of the angelic host, the more successful will be the efforts of these heavenly agents in our behalf. . . . Those who have the unction from on high, will in all their efforts encourage order, discipline, and union of action, and then the angels of God can co-operate with them. But never, never will these heavenly messengers place their indorsement upon irregularity, disorganization, and disorder. All these evils are the result of Satan's efforts to weaken our forces, to destroy courage, and prevent successful action. ... It is his studied effort to lead professed Christians just as far from heaven's arrangement as he can; therefore he deceives even the professed people of God, and makes them believe that order and discipline are enemies to spirituality. . . . All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery.— "Testimonies for the Church," Vol. I, page 649.
But all the Bible history shows that thorough organization is one of the heavenly appointed safeguards against popery. This is why those who have risen in rebellion against the truth, to lead away disciples after themselves, have always struck at organization. This has been as a hedge round about the people of God, securing the protection of the angelic host.
The details of organization may vary according to conditions and work, but ever as God has called his church together there has appeared in it the spiritual gift of order and of government, the spirit that rules in heaven. Harmony with God's truth and work for the time has been shown by orderly and harmonious co-operation with the body of believers. And all along the enemy who began his attack on organization in heaven, in order to detach the angels from the ranks and lead them astray, has worked against the organization of the body of believers on earth, in order to divide and scatter.
W. A. Spicer
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Conclusions from Our Roots
We have, from the beginning of our protestations about the governance debacle at Takoma Park, insisted that the changes were not just a bad idea poorly implemented, but a change antithetical to Adventism itself. That is a grand claim, which we have undertaken to substantiate through the post series, Our Roots. Having proceeded through that historical exploration we are now prepared to tie together all the strands and prove this claim.
We have begun this process already with several earlier posts. The Lessons from Our Roots (posted January 18, 2011) highlighted the fact that as our church founders began the conversation about organization they took care to allow adequate time and discussion on the matter and to maintain a respectful tone toward all those participating in the discussions. The Principles of Organization (posted March 2, 2011) showed that those early attitudes of openness and mutual consideration were formalized in the principles of free discussion, consensus decisions, representative government, transparency, simplicity, utility, stewardship, and coordinated effort which characterized the system of government that was eventually established. These basic principles have continued to be the basis of Adventist governance at all levels of the church organization since it was first established.
In Principle Over Form (posted July 1, 2011) the question of the changeability of the Adventist governance system was explored. It was seen that the principles which are the basis of the Adventist governance system are not to change. It was also seen that the practice of those principles can become corrupted over time, in which case the practices may periodically need to be reviewed and revised if such a drift is found to have taken place, but no one should ever entertain the thought that the principles themselves are open to revision. The Spirit of Prophesy is very clear on this.
Principle Over Form also pointed out that there is a distinction between principles and form. While the principles are nonnegotiable, God allows church members to choose the form of governance for themselves, provided it is 1) in harmony with the principles, 2) furthers the mission of the church, and 3) is established to be the will of the world church by being duly processed and voted on through the proper channels. This distinction was borne out as we saw the unfolding of the Kellogg/Jones situation. Ellen White had nothing to say about proposed changes to the form of governance until the proposals began to include changes to principle, at which time she became very vocal in her opposition to them.
Throughout Our Roots we have seen a tug-of-war over the balance of power in the denomination. We saw the bottleneck of power in the General Conference during the 1880s and 1890s which was broken when a group of leaders, supported by Ellen White, got together at the 1901 General Conference Session and insisted that the Session address the matter of reorganization. We saw the strengthening of the position of the General Conference at the 1903 Session, after the previous two years proved that the changes of 1901 had made it too weak in some respects. We saw the Kellogg/Jones challenge to any kind of formal organization at all, to which the denomination responded by presenting the membership with rational arguments explaining the hazards of their position and disproving the lies which supported it. We saw another movement to delegate power in 1913 through the creation of the divisions, and how that power shift was tempered in the adjustments of 1918.
One thing we have never seen in this examination of organizational history is any situation in which leadership simply ordered members to accept a change decided on by administrators alone or take their word for the truth of a position. In every instance of power shift mentioned above, the options, issues, and positions of the participants were freely discussed and openly considered in appropriate forums without any accusations of disloyalty or disobedience to the church or church leadership because of the expression of those differing opinions. Even Kellogg and Jones were given every opportunity to express their positions and support them as best they could. It was only after it was clearly seen by all that those positions were wholly incompatible with those of the denomination, and that the gentlemen refused to change their positions, that they were removed from membership.
There are four basic conclusions we take away from this historical exploration of Adventist governance:
1) The Adventist system is unlike any other standard pattern of church governance. The church founders had two primary concerns as they initially considered organization which continue to impact the nature of Adventist governance. The first was a desire to have an organization strong enough to effectively conduct mission. The second was a fear of having an organization so strong that it could become a dictatorial “Babylon.” The desire for effective mission suggested a top-down form of governance that could efficiently make decisions and wield resources, but this would have the disadvantage of possibly leading to the very Babylon they feared. Babylon could be prevented with a bottom-up organization in which the voice of the people would be paramount as safeguard and driving force, but bottom-up religious associations tend to be very weak on top, which could impede the effective mission they desired. So the founders of Adventist governance created a system which was neither top-down nor bottom-up, but rather took elements from both models to act as checks and balances for each other and form an organization that was effective in mission without becoming overbearing.
Under this hybrid system of governance power is derived from the vote of the people, but some of that power is voluntarily surrendered as each unit of the church organization chooses to join a larger unit of organization (congregation joining conference, conference joining union, etc.). That surrendered power is in the form of rules and policies the unit agrees to be bound by and counsel it agrees to accept from the organization above it. In turn, the direction of the higher organization in these matters is controlled by the fact that the constituent entities elect the officers of these higher organizations.
2) The Adventist system of governance assumes—and depends on—integrity throughout its components. Because of this, there is little to nothing by way of systemic checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. It is simply taken for granted that by designating certain functions to the voice of the people and others to the clergy/higher organization that these two elements will hold each other in balance and all parties involved (being Christian, after all) possess sufficient integrity to not seek more power than they are allotted.
Realistically, this doesn’t always work so well. While it is fine to say that if one side of this balance is getting too strong the other side should step up and pull them back, if one side is too strong it is generally because the other side is too weak to pull them back. This makes it extremely difficult to correct an imbalance in either direction. The intervention of a higher level of governance is generally required, but even then there is only so much a higher level can do without overstepping its authority. (The situation is somewhat easier if the imbalance is caused by an excess of pastoral/system power—assuming the higher organization is willing to pull back their own agents/efforts—but that’s a subject for a different post).
Certain limited options do exist for the higher organization to take disciplinary action against individuals (or even entire church units) in extreme circumstances. There are no such safeguards against excesses of power by the higher organization except for constituents to vote out of office the personnel engaging in those excesses.
3) Local Adventist governance is inseparable from global Adventist governance. The system of governance in the local Adventist congregation is the same hybrid system which balances the power in the higher levels of Adventist organization. This system is realized in the local congregation through its local officer elections and the say-so of these officers in running the congregation through the church board. It is also realized in the power of the people’s voice being limited by having that governance body chaired by a pastor of the conference’s choosing and on the conference’s payroll, by being obligated to remit all tithe to the conference, and by adhering to the Church Manual. In this way the voice of the people can present many different ideas and opinions and give the people “ownership” of the resulting decisions, while the voice of the professional clergy gives solid theological and missional foundation. This being a working out of the pattern to be found throughout Adventist governance, it cannot be altered without unbalancing the system in some other part of the organization.
Why should breaking away from this system make the higher organization fall apart? Without a strong higher organization the focus of a congregation tends to turn inward rather than being on mission. And even if mission continues, it tends to be strictly local, losing the big picture of worldwide needs and thereby losing the outreach identity of the denomination. But if the higher organization is so strong that clergy dominate every facet of local church life, freedom of conscience is subordinated to the leader and the people no longer “own” the purpose and plans of the church. This creates formalism and spiritual stagnation. Adventist governance must maintain the balance between the strength of the organization and the voice of the people at all levels of the governance structure if it is to carry out its missional purpose.
4) The church is not a chasm, on one side of which are the people who command and on the other side of which are the people who obey. There is no caste system within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. All members are part of the royal priesthood of God and as such are not only invited but required to be thinking, active, and knowledgeable participants in the operation of the denomination. No one gets to sit on the sidelines and let someone else direct their religious experience for them.
The integrity of the Adventist governance system is dependent on an active membership which thinks. A thinking membership that acts according to those thoughts—rather than blindly following the lead of the clergy—is the designated balance for excesses of power by the clergy. We cannot say this strongly enough. It is not the job of the higher organization to stop a misuse of power by clergy. They may seek to guide and counsel their subordinates who have gone astray, but the primary task of reigning in such excesses belongs to the lay membership. The way the membership does this is by exercising their right to speak and vote in the meetings of the church.
To summarize our conclusions even more succinctly, Adventist governance is a delicately balanced system designed to maximize missional effectiveness while minimizing the risk of power abuses. Messing with any small part of the system is messing with the whole system, so unless the changes are made globally the results can be devastating.
Having examined the governance philosophies of Paul Borden in depth in the post series Bullseye (posted between April 12 and June 11, 2010) we won’t detail them here beyond what is necessary to explain the results of implementing them in Adventist congregations. Borden assumes that a church is starting with a classic bottom-up governance system—congregationalism. Under this system a local church may have loose ties to a higher organization, but they are strictly voluntary and all real decision-making power is retained locally. Borden recognizes that this arrangement lacks the strength to move forward purposefully, so he seeks to balance the situation by giving greater strength to the clergy. The problem is that he goes about this in exactly the opposite way of how Adventist governance does. There are three essential opposites:
1A. Borden assumes that pastoral assignments (and the hiring, paying, directing and firing that go along with them) are controlled by the congregation.
1B. Under the Adventist system pastoral assignments are controlled by the conference rather than the congregation.
2A. Borden gives local operational decisions to the pastor.
2B. Adventism gives local operational decisions to the democratic functions of the church board, which is populated by lay leaders.
3A. Borden assumes that any higher levels of organization have no legal or operational control over the congregation.
3B. Adventism specifies that conferences exert certain legal and operational limits over the local congregation.
Either system on its own has a certain balance. Borden gives the work to the pastor and the inducements to make the pastor work to the congregation. Under this system the higher organization avoids getting involved in local matters. Adventism gives the work to the congregation and gives them a pastor to help them get it done. Under this system the higher organization gives the pastor the inducements to get the work done.
But when Bordenism is introduced in Adventist congregations, you give the work to the pastor, the congregation is expected to stand back and let the pastor act however he chooses, and the higher organization which controls the inducements refuses to get involved. This half-of-one-and-half-of-the-other system leaves no balance, no control, and no accountability.
How much more clearly could we possibly say it? Bordenism destroys the delicate balance of the hybrid system of Adventist governance. For this reason, Bordenism and Adventism simply do not mix.
We have begun this process already with several earlier posts. The Lessons from Our Roots (posted January 18, 2011) highlighted the fact that as our church founders began the conversation about organization they took care to allow adequate time and discussion on the matter and to maintain a respectful tone toward all those participating in the discussions. The Principles of Organization (posted March 2, 2011) showed that those early attitudes of openness and mutual consideration were formalized in the principles of free discussion, consensus decisions, representative government, transparency, simplicity, utility, stewardship, and coordinated effort which characterized the system of government that was eventually established. These basic principles have continued to be the basis of Adventist governance at all levels of the church organization since it was first established.
In Principle Over Form (posted July 1, 2011) the question of the changeability of the Adventist governance system was explored. It was seen that the principles which are the basis of the Adventist governance system are not to change. It was also seen that the practice of those principles can become corrupted over time, in which case the practices may periodically need to be reviewed and revised if such a drift is found to have taken place, but no one should ever entertain the thought that the principles themselves are open to revision. The Spirit of Prophesy is very clear on this.
Principle Over Form also pointed out that there is a distinction between principles and form. While the principles are nonnegotiable, God allows church members to choose the form of governance for themselves, provided it is 1) in harmony with the principles, 2) furthers the mission of the church, and 3) is established to be the will of the world church by being duly processed and voted on through the proper channels. This distinction was borne out as we saw the unfolding of the Kellogg/Jones situation. Ellen White had nothing to say about proposed changes to the form of governance until the proposals began to include changes to principle, at which time she became very vocal in her opposition to them.
Throughout Our Roots we have seen a tug-of-war over the balance of power in the denomination. We saw the bottleneck of power in the General Conference during the 1880s and 1890s which was broken when a group of leaders, supported by Ellen White, got together at the 1901 General Conference Session and insisted that the Session address the matter of reorganization. We saw the strengthening of the position of the General Conference at the 1903 Session, after the previous two years proved that the changes of 1901 had made it too weak in some respects. We saw the Kellogg/Jones challenge to any kind of formal organization at all, to which the denomination responded by presenting the membership with rational arguments explaining the hazards of their position and disproving the lies which supported it. We saw another movement to delegate power in 1913 through the creation of the divisions, and how that power shift was tempered in the adjustments of 1918.
One thing we have never seen in this examination of organizational history is any situation in which leadership simply ordered members to accept a change decided on by administrators alone or take their word for the truth of a position. In every instance of power shift mentioned above, the options, issues, and positions of the participants were freely discussed and openly considered in appropriate forums without any accusations of disloyalty or disobedience to the church or church leadership because of the expression of those differing opinions. Even Kellogg and Jones were given every opportunity to express their positions and support them as best they could. It was only after it was clearly seen by all that those positions were wholly incompatible with those of the denomination, and that the gentlemen refused to change their positions, that they were removed from membership.
There are four basic conclusions we take away from this historical exploration of Adventist governance:
1) The Adventist system is unlike any other standard pattern of church governance. The church founders had two primary concerns as they initially considered organization which continue to impact the nature of Adventist governance. The first was a desire to have an organization strong enough to effectively conduct mission. The second was a fear of having an organization so strong that it could become a dictatorial “Babylon.” The desire for effective mission suggested a top-down form of governance that could efficiently make decisions and wield resources, but this would have the disadvantage of possibly leading to the very Babylon they feared. Babylon could be prevented with a bottom-up organization in which the voice of the people would be paramount as safeguard and driving force, but bottom-up religious associations tend to be very weak on top, which could impede the effective mission they desired. So the founders of Adventist governance created a system which was neither top-down nor bottom-up, but rather took elements from both models to act as checks and balances for each other and form an organization that was effective in mission without becoming overbearing.
Under this hybrid system of governance power is derived from the vote of the people, but some of that power is voluntarily surrendered as each unit of the church organization chooses to join a larger unit of organization (congregation joining conference, conference joining union, etc.). That surrendered power is in the form of rules and policies the unit agrees to be bound by and counsel it agrees to accept from the organization above it. In turn, the direction of the higher organization in these matters is controlled by the fact that the constituent entities elect the officers of these higher organizations.
2) The Adventist system of governance assumes—and depends on—integrity throughout its components. Because of this, there is little to nothing by way of systemic checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. It is simply taken for granted that by designating certain functions to the voice of the people and others to the clergy/higher organization that these two elements will hold each other in balance and all parties involved (being Christian, after all) possess sufficient integrity to not seek more power than they are allotted.
Realistically, this doesn’t always work so well. While it is fine to say that if one side of this balance is getting too strong the other side should step up and pull them back, if one side is too strong it is generally because the other side is too weak to pull them back. This makes it extremely difficult to correct an imbalance in either direction. The intervention of a higher level of governance is generally required, but even then there is only so much a higher level can do without overstepping its authority. (The situation is somewhat easier if the imbalance is caused by an excess of pastoral/system power—assuming the higher organization is willing to pull back their own agents/efforts—but that’s a subject for a different post).
Certain limited options do exist for the higher organization to take disciplinary action against individuals (or even entire church units) in extreme circumstances. There are no such safeguards against excesses of power by the higher organization except for constituents to vote out of office the personnel engaging in those excesses.
3) Local Adventist governance is inseparable from global Adventist governance. The system of governance in the local Adventist congregation is the same hybrid system which balances the power in the higher levels of Adventist organization. This system is realized in the local congregation through its local officer elections and the say-so of these officers in running the congregation through the church board. It is also realized in the power of the people’s voice being limited by having that governance body chaired by a pastor of the conference’s choosing and on the conference’s payroll, by being obligated to remit all tithe to the conference, and by adhering to the Church Manual. In this way the voice of the people can present many different ideas and opinions and give the people “ownership” of the resulting decisions, while the voice of the professional clergy gives solid theological and missional foundation. This being a working out of the pattern to be found throughout Adventist governance, it cannot be altered without unbalancing the system in some other part of the organization.
Why should breaking away from this system make the higher organization fall apart? Without a strong higher organization the focus of a congregation tends to turn inward rather than being on mission. And even if mission continues, it tends to be strictly local, losing the big picture of worldwide needs and thereby losing the outreach identity of the denomination. But if the higher organization is so strong that clergy dominate every facet of local church life, freedom of conscience is subordinated to the leader and the people no longer “own” the purpose and plans of the church. This creates formalism and spiritual stagnation. Adventist governance must maintain the balance between the strength of the organization and the voice of the people at all levels of the governance structure if it is to carry out its missional purpose.
4) The church is not a chasm, on one side of which are the people who command and on the other side of which are the people who obey. There is no caste system within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. All members are part of the royal priesthood of God and as such are not only invited but required to be thinking, active, and knowledgeable participants in the operation of the denomination. No one gets to sit on the sidelines and let someone else direct their religious experience for them.
The integrity of the Adventist governance system is dependent on an active membership which thinks. A thinking membership that acts according to those thoughts—rather than blindly following the lead of the clergy—is the designated balance for excesses of power by the clergy. We cannot say this strongly enough. It is not the job of the higher organization to stop a misuse of power by clergy. They may seek to guide and counsel their subordinates who have gone astray, but the primary task of reigning in such excesses belongs to the lay membership. The way the membership does this is by exercising their right to speak and vote in the meetings of the church.
To summarize our conclusions even more succinctly, Adventist governance is a delicately balanced system designed to maximize missional effectiveness while minimizing the risk of power abuses. Messing with any small part of the system is messing with the whole system, so unless the changes are made globally the results can be devastating.
Having examined the governance philosophies of Paul Borden in depth in the post series Bullseye (posted between April 12 and June 11, 2010) we won’t detail them here beyond what is necessary to explain the results of implementing them in Adventist congregations. Borden assumes that a church is starting with a classic bottom-up governance system—congregationalism. Under this system a local church may have loose ties to a higher organization, but they are strictly voluntary and all real decision-making power is retained locally. Borden recognizes that this arrangement lacks the strength to move forward purposefully, so he seeks to balance the situation by giving greater strength to the clergy. The problem is that he goes about this in exactly the opposite way of how Adventist governance does. There are three essential opposites:
1A. Borden assumes that pastoral assignments (and the hiring, paying, directing and firing that go along with them) are controlled by the congregation.
1B. Under the Adventist system pastoral assignments are controlled by the conference rather than the congregation.
2A. Borden gives local operational decisions to the pastor.
2B. Adventism gives local operational decisions to the democratic functions of the church board, which is populated by lay leaders.
3A. Borden assumes that any higher levels of organization have no legal or operational control over the congregation.
3B. Adventism specifies that conferences exert certain legal and operational limits over the local congregation.
Either system on its own has a certain balance. Borden gives the work to the pastor and the inducements to make the pastor work to the congregation. Under this system the higher organization avoids getting involved in local matters. Adventism gives the work to the congregation and gives them a pastor to help them get it done. Under this system the higher organization gives the pastor the inducements to get the work done.
But when Bordenism is introduced in Adventist congregations, you give the work to the pastor, the congregation is expected to stand back and let the pastor act however he chooses, and the higher organization which controls the inducements refuses to get involved. This half-of-one-and-half-of-the-other system leaves no balance, no control, and no accountability.
How much more clearly could we possibly say it? Bordenism destroys the delicate balance of the hybrid system of Adventist governance. For this reason, Bordenism and Adventism simply do not mix.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Our Roots, Pt.48
There have not been any dramatic changes in Adventist church structure since the early part of the twentieth century. There have been changes of growth—more congregations, conferences, union conferences, and divisions have been added—but the way these bodies relate to each other has remained relatively constant. There has been some tendency for the divisions to function with greater independence from the General Conference, but the nature of the essential ties that define their relationships is unchanged.
Only one new type of administrative entity has been added since the divisions were revised in 1918; that entity is the Union of Churches. A union of churches is like a conference in that it is composed of congregations, and like a union conference in that it reports directly to a division. It is used only in special circumstances where impediments exist to the traditional conference and union conference model, rather than throughout the system of governance, and its functions and personnel are essentially the same as a conference. Therefore, it doesn’t represent any significant alteration of the governance model.
One other minor change that has occurred in the last few decades is that the interval between General Conference Sessions has again been lengthened, so that they now meet once every five years.
There are some who argue that the present system of governance has more layers than are needed in the present age of rapid communication. The suggestion has been made that the union conference level be eliminated and that in its place there should simply be a larger number of divisions with somewhat smaller territories than they presently possess, but still larger than the territory of a union conference. It is an interesting idea, particularly in light of the historical fact that one of the major justifications for the creation of both union conferences and divisions was the need for faster communication with those empowered to make decisions, which in those days meant having empowered decision makers physically closer to the location of the issue. On the other hand, another major justification for these levels of governance was the need to delegate as much decision making as possible, because it was simply too much for the General Conference to handle alone. So while the communication issues have been mitigated, or even eliminated, by the advance of technology, the need to delegate because of the enormity of the task has only been made more acute by the growth of the church.
We don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other about the proposal to eliminate union conferences. But whether it is adopted or not we do think there is a deeper issue that needs to be addressed in order for either strategy (eliminating union conferences or leaving them as is) to succeed in improving the effectiveness of church governance. There must be a clarification of the purpose of each level of the governance structure.
During the course of our appeal to the Potomac Conference it was asserted (in the context of whether or not we could appeal a decision of the Potomac Conference to the Columbia Union) that conferences manage churches, unions manage conferences, divisions manage unions, and the General Conference manages divisions. This is a perfect example of how not to define the purpose of each entity. If all each level does is look over the shoulder of the level below it, there is no reason why we shouldn’t start eliminating levels. Then there is the incredible ambiguity of what is entailed in “manage.” There simply is no purpose in this statement.
Here is how we would define the purpose of the various levels of the Adventist governance system. The purpose of the General Conference should be to define global identity. This would include being the final word on doctrine and policy, seeing that all areas of the world have the appropriate human and financial resources to carry on evangelism effectively, and making general plans for evangelism and discipleship activities. The purpose of the divisions should be to take the global identity defined by the General Conference and make it applicable to the cultural context of their territory. The purpose of the union conferences should be to bring unity among the diverse populations in their territory and mobilize them for united efforts in evangelism that the smaller units would not be able to muster alone. The purpose of the conferences should be to train local members for service and facilitate those service activities as needed. The local congregation should be the “boots on the ground,” the people who go out and do what the rest of the organization has been planning and preparing the way for.
End of Our Roots.
Only one new type of administrative entity has been added since the divisions were revised in 1918; that entity is the Union of Churches. A union of churches is like a conference in that it is composed of congregations, and like a union conference in that it reports directly to a division. It is used only in special circumstances where impediments exist to the traditional conference and union conference model, rather than throughout the system of governance, and its functions and personnel are essentially the same as a conference. Therefore, it doesn’t represent any significant alteration of the governance model.
One other minor change that has occurred in the last few decades is that the interval between General Conference Sessions has again been lengthened, so that they now meet once every five years.
There are some who argue that the present system of governance has more layers than are needed in the present age of rapid communication. The suggestion has been made that the union conference level be eliminated and that in its place there should simply be a larger number of divisions with somewhat smaller territories than they presently possess, but still larger than the territory of a union conference. It is an interesting idea, particularly in light of the historical fact that one of the major justifications for the creation of both union conferences and divisions was the need for faster communication with those empowered to make decisions, which in those days meant having empowered decision makers physically closer to the location of the issue. On the other hand, another major justification for these levels of governance was the need to delegate as much decision making as possible, because it was simply too much for the General Conference to handle alone. So while the communication issues have been mitigated, or even eliminated, by the advance of technology, the need to delegate because of the enormity of the task has only been made more acute by the growth of the church.
We don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other about the proposal to eliminate union conferences. But whether it is adopted or not we do think there is a deeper issue that needs to be addressed in order for either strategy (eliminating union conferences or leaving them as is) to succeed in improving the effectiveness of church governance. There must be a clarification of the purpose of each level of the governance structure.
During the course of our appeal to the Potomac Conference it was asserted (in the context of whether or not we could appeal a decision of the Potomac Conference to the Columbia Union) that conferences manage churches, unions manage conferences, divisions manage unions, and the General Conference manages divisions. This is a perfect example of how not to define the purpose of each entity. If all each level does is look over the shoulder of the level below it, there is no reason why we shouldn’t start eliminating levels. Then there is the incredible ambiguity of what is entailed in “manage.” There simply is no purpose in this statement.
Here is how we would define the purpose of the various levels of the Adventist governance system. The purpose of the General Conference should be to define global identity. This would include being the final word on doctrine and policy, seeing that all areas of the world have the appropriate human and financial resources to carry on evangelism effectively, and making general plans for evangelism and discipleship activities. The purpose of the divisions should be to take the global identity defined by the General Conference and make it applicable to the cultural context of their territory. The purpose of the union conferences should be to bring unity among the diverse populations in their territory and mobilize them for united efforts in evangelism that the smaller units would not be able to muster alone. The purpose of the conferences should be to train local members for service and facilitate those service activities as needed. The local congregation should be the “boots on the ground,” the people who go out and do what the rest of the organization has been planning and preparing the way for.
End of Our Roots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)