"Those who are most ready to excuse or justify themselves in sin are often most severe in judging and condemning others. There are many today, like Saul, bringing upon themselves the displeasure of God. They reject counsel and despise reproof. Even when convinced that the Lord is not with them, they refuse to see in themselves. . . the cause of their trouble. How many cherish a proud, boastful spirit, while they indulge in cruel judgment or severe rebuke of others really better in heart and life than they. Well would it be for such self-constituted judges to ponder those words of Christ: "With what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Signs of the Times, Aug. 17, 1882).
"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).
Friday, July 17, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 15
Many things happened in the month that followed the first ministry board meeting. First, the church office sent copies of the “Code of Ethics” to all the members of the ministry board who had not been present at the first meeting. Most of the absent members were elders, since it had not been well publicized that all elders were considered members of the ministries board. Second, it was noised around that the “Code of Ethics” was prepared by the North American Division. This was a claim we found extremely hard to believe. We decided to verify it.
“Elder B” called NAD to ask who she should speak to regarding verifying whether a particular document had been produced by NAD. She was transferred to the assistant for Roscoe Howard, who was at that time the Secretary of NAD. Upon hearing what was wanted the assistant told Elder B that if she wanted them to look at the document she should sent it to them, which Elder B did. Upon reviewing the document, and without any direct conversation with any member of Takoma Park to color his perspective, Elder Howard wrote this letter in response:
“March 25, 2008
“Dear [Elder B]:
“As I read over the documents you sent, I was very concerned over the general direction the church is shifted toward. This is not the Church governance that has been established by the World Church or the North American Division. I would direct you to the Church Manual on page 26 which speaks of a representative form of church governance where the local church membership has ultimate authority for all church business.
“The Church Manual is also clear as to the authority of the Church Board. It does not have the authority to make major decision without the consent of the church in Business Session. The board is subject to the church in Business Session at all times. Any decision the board makes cam be overturned by the church in Business Session. The church members in Business Session have the final say as to how the church will conduct business.
“This document seems to be moving away from the basic primes. I could not support this form of church governance nor would the General Conference. It is a far departure of how the Seventh-day Adventist church does business. I could write much more and quote many policies but I wanted to give you a quick response.
“In His Service;
“Roscoe J Howard III
North American Division Secretary”
It doesn’t take a detective to deduce from this letter that not only did NAD not have any part in creating the “Code of Ethics,” they didn’t want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. The Group found this very enlightening, but decided not to confront the pastoral staff with this letter at the April ministry board out of respect and a desire not to embarrass them unduly.
When the ministry board met in April 2008 discussion of the “Code of Ethics” resumed. Elder B, who had been one of the elders not present at the first meeting, was the first to be recognized. She questioned Pastor DeSilva regarding the attendance policy, pointing out that under it she already had one mark against her for having been absent at the previous meeting simply because she didn’t know she was supposed to be present. Pastor DeSilva’s response was shocking, “Oh no, no, I never said anything like that [the attendance policy]. See, this is why you shouldn’t listen to what other people tell you about what happens in meetings.” Friends, the attendance policy was written in the very document he was asking us to vote on. In the previous meeting he had read it aloud and verbally reiterated it. Yet when he perceived that it might not be a popular statement he told a bold-faced lie to the entire leadership of the congregation denying he had ever uttered it rather than defend an unpopular position!
Next to be recognized was the head of the communications department. She objected to item 12 in the Suggestions for Effectiveness for roughly the same reasons as were outlined in the Analysis. When she pointed out that this policy would prevent the reconsideration of bad decisions Pastor DeSilva, supported by the chairman of the finance committee, immediately stated that no such thing would happen. Any decision could be revisited at any time, Pastor DeSilva reassured. (This also turned out to be a lie, as will be demonstrated later.)
Elder B was recognized again. She asked Pastor DeSilva about the assertion that had gone around that the “Code of Ethics” was coming from the North American Division. Pastor DeSilva stated that it was absolutely true. Elder B expressed doubt about this and asked to see the documentation of this as an official statement from the North American Division. Pastor DeSilva stated that it was up in his office and that he didn’t want to delay the meeting. At this several attendees voiced a willingness to wait while he retrieved the evidence. Pastor DeSilva hedged again, stating that he couldn’t remember off-hand where in his office he had put it. Again willingness was expressed to wait while he looked. At this Pastor DeSilva flat out stated that he wasn’t going to go get it and that we were just going to have to trust him that the evidence did exist. (In other words, he had just told his third bold-faced lie to the leadership of the church in the space of about half an hour and chose to bluster through it rather than admit anything when called on it!) To this decidedly unsatisfactory answer Elder B bluntly stated that she did not believe Pastor DeSilva.
Pastor Fuentes, Takoma Park’s Pastor for Discipleship and Assimilation, chose that moment to start heckling Elder B. He reprimanded her for saying such a thing because she was accusing the pastor of lying and that if she was going to do so that she had to produce proof. Thinking of Elder Howard’s letter and the Group’s decision not to bring it up at that meeting she stated simply that she would do so at another time. This didn’t satisfy Pastor Fuentes and he continued to push her. Elder B stood up and turned around to speak to Pastor Fuentes face to face, because he was seated behind her. Pastor Fuentes exploded. His exact words were, “You don’t talk to me like that! I’m a pastor! SIT DOWN!” Elder B chose instead to pick up her belongings and walk out of the room.
The entire meeting was in shock at this outburst from Pastor Fuentes. Someone suggested that the meeting be stopped for a prayer to refocus the proceedings. After the prayer the vote on the “Code of Ethics” was eventually taken. It passed.
Next: The Almighty Dollar
Religious
“Elder B” called NAD to ask who she should speak to regarding verifying whether a particular document had been produced by NAD. She was transferred to the assistant for Roscoe Howard, who was at that time the Secretary of NAD. Upon hearing what was wanted the assistant told Elder B that if she wanted them to look at the document she should sent it to them, which Elder B did. Upon reviewing the document, and without any direct conversation with any member of Takoma Park to color his perspective, Elder Howard wrote this letter in response:
“March 25, 2008
“Dear [Elder B]:
“As I read over the documents you sent, I was very concerned over the general direction the church is shifted toward. This is not the Church governance that has been established by the World Church or the North American Division. I would direct you to the Church Manual on page 26 which speaks of a representative form of church governance where the local church membership has ultimate authority for all church business.
“The Church Manual is also clear as to the authority of the Church Board. It does not have the authority to make major decision without the consent of the church in Business Session. The board is subject to the church in Business Session at all times. Any decision the board makes cam be overturned by the church in Business Session. The church members in Business Session have the final say as to how the church will conduct business.
“This document seems to be moving away from the basic primes. I could not support this form of church governance nor would the General Conference. It is a far departure of how the Seventh-day Adventist church does business. I could write much more and quote many policies but I wanted to give you a quick response.
“In His Service;
“Roscoe J Howard III
North American Division Secretary”
It doesn’t take a detective to deduce from this letter that not only did NAD not have any part in creating the “Code of Ethics,” they didn’t want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. The Group found this very enlightening, but decided not to confront the pastoral staff with this letter at the April ministry board out of respect and a desire not to embarrass them unduly.
When the ministry board met in April 2008 discussion of the “Code of Ethics” resumed. Elder B, who had been one of the elders not present at the first meeting, was the first to be recognized. She questioned Pastor DeSilva regarding the attendance policy, pointing out that under it she already had one mark against her for having been absent at the previous meeting simply because she didn’t know she was supposed to be present. Pastor DeSilva’s response was shocking, “Oh no, no, I never said anything like that [the attendance policy]. See, this is why you shouldn’t listen to what other people tell you about what happens in meetings.” Friends, the attendance policy was written in the very document he was asking us to vote on. In the previous meeting he had read it aloud and verbally reiterated it. Yet when he perceived that it might not be a popular statement he told a bold-faced lie to the entire leadership of the congregation denying he had ever uttered it rather than defend an unpopular position!
Next to be recognized was the head of the communications department. She objected to item 12 in the Suggestions for Effectiveness for roughly the same reasons as were outlined in the Analysis. When she pointed out that this policy would prevent the reconsideration of bad decisions Pastor DeSilva, supported by the chairman of the finance committee, immediately stated that no such thing would happen. Any decision could be revisited at any time, Pastor DeSilva reassured. (This also turned out to be a lie, as will be demonstrated later.)
Elder B was recognized again. She asked Pastor DeSilva about the assertion that had gone around that the “Code of Ethics” was coming from the North American Division. Pastor DeSilva stated that it was absolutely true. Elder B expressed doubt about this and asked to see the documentation of this as an official statement from the North American Division. Pastor DeSilva stated that it was up in his office and that he didn’t want to delay the meeting. At this several attendees voiced a willingness to wait while he retrieved the evidence. Pastor DeSilva hedged again, stating that he couldn’t remember off-hand where in his office he had put it. Again willingness was expressed to wait while he looked. At this Pastor DeSilva flat out stated that he wasn’t going to go get it and that we were just going to have to trust him that the evidence did exist. (In other words, he had just told his third bold-faced lie to the leadership of the church in the space of about half an hour and chose to bluster through it rather than admit anything when called on it!) To this decidedly unsatisfactory answer Elder B bluntly stated that she did not believe Pastor DeSilva.
Pastor Fuentes, Takoma Park’s Pastor for Discipleship and Assimilation, chose that moment to start heckling Elder B. He reprimanded her for saying such a thing because she was accusing the pastor of lying and that if she was going to do so that she had to produce proof. Thinking of Elder Howard’s letter and the Group’s decision not to bring it up at that meeting she stated simply that she would do so at another time. This didn’t satisfy Pastor Fuentes and he continued to push her. Elder B stood up and turned around to speak to Pastor Fuentes face to face, because he was seated behind her. Pastor Fuentes exploded. His exact words were, “You don’t talk to me like that! I’m a pastor! SIT DOWN!” Elder B chose instead to pick up her belongings and walk out of the room.
The entire meeting was in shock at this outburst from Pastor Fuentes. Someone suggested that the meeting be stopped for a prayer to refocus the proceedings. After the prayer the vote on the “Code of Ethics” was eventually taken. It passed.
Next: The Almighty Dollar
Religious
"Code of Ethics" Analysis
“*Any mention of “The Church Board” is understood to mean “Church Ministries Board” in this document.”
This statement acknowledges that the Church Ministries Board simply is not the same as a Church Board as defined by the Church Manual, and should not be mistaken for the same thing. This is significant because when pressed on the issue of whether or not this new system is in accordance with the Church Manual Pastor DeSilva has claimed that we really do have a Church Board, it’s just called something different. Aside from the differences evident to anyone who compares the two, this statement written by Pastor DeSilva himself makes it plain that at the time he did not consider the two to be the same. (And nothing has changed since then to make them the same.)
“You should be loyal to God, loyal to the pastor, and loyal to the members.”
What sort of loyalty is being referred to here? Loyalty to God is an absolute loyalty. () The loyalty that God demands allows no equal, conflict, or dilution. Loyalty to our fellow man takes the form of faithful service to them in God’s name and for the furtherance of His purposes. The latter is subordinate to and the outgrowth of the former. Yet in this statement loyalty to God is put on the same level as loyalty to human beings, particularly the pastor. What special sort of loyalty is the pastor requiring of the lay leadership that he feels a need to specify loyalty to himself above and beyond that which naturally results from loyalty to the cause of God? Loyalty to anyone other than God should never be stipulated, especially by a church. Loyalty to God has no equal, and if you are loyal to God everything else naturally falls into its proper place.
Regarding numbers one through nine and number eleven of the Suggestions for Effectiveness, we have only to say that we desperately wish our pastors would practice what they preach.
“10. Confidentiality of Discussions”
The Seventh-day Adventist Church operates a representative form of government. Elected leaders in a representative government must answer for their actions, statements, and positions, good or bad. To restrict reporting back to the electorate on the actions and positions of their representatives destroys accountability, which is an indispensable part of representative government. This item stipulates that leaders are under a permanent gag order and that only the pastor may communicate with the congregation or any individual member about the activities of the Ministries Board. This authoritarian control of the message of the leadership is the hallmark of a dictatorship, not a democracy.
“12. Support of the Majority Vote.”
This item leads of back to the objections to item 10. How can there be accountability if no one is allowed to disagree with a decision the Ministry Board makes? Also, how can mistakes be corrected? To say, “I think we made a mistake; we should revisit that issue,” is to speak against a decision. Therefore, no matter what new evidence or changed circumstances came along to invalidate a decision, revisiting the issue would not be tolerated. Finally, this item issues a gag order on the leaders’ consciences. If we were simply talking about matters of paint/carpet color, that would be one thing, but a Ministry Board charged with spiritual leadership of a congregation must necessarily consider matters of conscience. To say that no one may express disagreement with that sort of vote is to place a gag order on that individual’s conscience.
“If you are absent without notification for three consecutive meetings the board may vote to replace you.”
The Ministry Board did not elect its membership, and it would be dramatically overstepping its bounds if it presumed to remove and/or replace any of its membership.
“A part of the work of the Church Board involves money. At each meeting we usually go through the financial statement pertaining to ministry, presented by the Finance Committee Chairman.”
According to the job description of the Ministry Board, its work does not involve money. Perhaps this explains why the financial reports which have been provided over the last year of Ministry Board function have been sketchy and irregular.
“Conflict of Interest”
Once again, we wish our pastors would practice what they preach.
This statement acknowledges that the Church Ministries Board simply is not the same as a Church Board as defined by the Church Manual, and should not be mistaken for the same thing. This is significant because when pressed on the issue of whether or not this new system is in accordance with the Church Manual Pastor DeSilva has claimed that we really do have a Church Board, it’s just called something different. Aside from the differences evident to anyone who compares the two, this statement written by Pastor DeSilva himself makes it plain that at the time he did not consider the two to be the same. (And nothing has changed since then to make them the same.)
“You should be loyal to God, loyal to the pastor, and loyal to the members.”
What sort of loyalty is being referred to here? Loyalty to God is an absolute loyalty. () The loyalty that God demands allows no equal, conflict, or dilution. Loyalty to our fellow man takes the form of faithful service to them in God’s name and for the furtherance of His purposes. The latter is subordinate to and the outgrowth of the former. Yet in this statement loyalty to God is put on the same level as loyalty to human beings, particularly the pastor. What special sort of loyalty is the pastor requiring of the lay leadership that he feels a need to specify loyalty to himself above and beyond that which naturally results from loyalty to the cause of God? Loyalty to anyone other than God should never be stipulated, especially by a church. Loyalty to God has no equal, and if you are loyal to God everything else naturally falls into its proper place.
Regarding numbers one through nine and number eleven of the Suggestions for Effectiveness, we have only to say that we desperately wish our pastors would practice what they preach.
“10. Confidentiality of Discussions”
The Seventh-day Adventist Church operates a representative form of government. Elected leaders in a representative government must answer for their actions, statements, and positions, good or bad. To restrict reporting back to the electorate on the actions and positions of their representatives destroys accountability, which is an indispensable part of representative government. This item stipulates that leaders are under a permanent gag order and that only the pastor may communicate with the congregation or any individual member about the activities of the Ministries Board. This authoritarian control of the message of the leadership is the hallmark of a dictatorship, not a democracy.
“12. Support of the Majority Vote.”
This item leads of back to the objections to item 10. How can there be accountability if no one is allowed to disagree with a decision the Ministry Board makes? Also, how can mistakes be corrected? To say, “I think we made a mistake; we should revisit that issue,” is to speak against a decision. Therefore, no matter what new evidence or changed circumstances came along to invalidate a decision, revisiting the issue would not be tolerated. Finally, this item issues a gag order on the leaders’ consciences. If we were simply talking about matters of paint/carpet color, that would be one thing, but a Ministry Board charged with spiritual leadership of a congregation must necessarily consider matters of conscience. To say that no one may express disagreement with that sort of vote is to place a gag order on that individual’s conscience.
“If you are absent without notification for three consecutive meetings the board may vote to replace you.”
The Ministry Board did not elect its membership, and it would be dramatically overstepping its bounds if it presumed to remove and/or replace any of its membership.
“A part of the work of the Church Board involves money. At each meeting we usually go through the financial statement pertaining to ministry, presented by the Finance Committee Chairman.”
According to the job description of the Ministry Board, its work does not involve money. Perhaps this explains why the financial reports which have been provided over the last year of Ministry Board function have been sketchy and irregular.
“Conflict of Interest”
Once again, we wish our pastors would practice what they preach.
Friday, June 26, 2009
"Code of Ethics"
Church Ministries Board Member
Introduction
Welcome to membership on the local Seventh-day Adventist Church Ministries Board! You have accepted an important responsibility. This board has been charged by the members of the local Seventh-day Adventist Church with the ministries operation of the church.
With such an important responsibility, persons selected must individually portray in their personal and corporate life qualities of spirituality, fairness and good judgment. You have been chosen because your church believes you exemplify these qualities.
*Any mention of “The Church Board” is understood to mean “Church Ministries Board” in this document.
Assumptions
As you begin functioning as a member of a local Seventh-day Adventist Church Board, you should know that your church assumes:
1. That you are accepting this responsibility willingly. Only willing members can effectively perform the services that will be necessary.
2. That you are a loyal and faithful member of this Seventh-day Adventist congregation.
3. That you are faithful in your stewardship responsibilities in terms of time, talent, and financial means.
4. That you will seek the Lord for divine guidance and courage to make necessary decisions.
5. That you will be ethical and professional in handling the information and decisions you will confront. You should be loyal to God, loyal to the pastor, and loyal to the members.
6. That you will put the interests of the church above any personal interest, for only thus can selfless service be rendered to the church and to Jesus, the Lord of the Church.
7. That you will always remember the church’s mission in making decisions.
Suggestions for Effectiveness
1. Commitment. A deep, genuine commitment to the Lord Jesus is the most important part of our work on this board. Our minds are to be the link through which God communicates His will to his church. Please spend time in earnest prayer before coming to each board meeting, so that your mind and spirit are in tune with the Divine.
2. Participation. In his book, Guidelines for Committee and Board Members, Dr. Robert Firth states: “No doubt there are places where silence is golden, but not on a committee. A committee member who sits through a meeting without saying something to aid the discussion is a useless committee member. The committee meetings is a place to exchange ideas, to create new ones, to hammer ideas into solutions, or to set a course of action.” page 48. However, Dr Firth balances things by cautioning against going to the other extreme: “There are those who talk a great deal at committee meetings and say virtually nothing. They might call such talking participation, but few others would. Participation assumes the making of a worthwhile contribution to the discussion.” Don’t be afraid to speak your conviction or disagree with others. This includes disagreeing with anyone, including the pastor. We are only as strong as our willingness to express opinions and convictions. We are all equal on this church board. Every voice carries equal weight. Every vote has equal weight. Some have a wider range of knowledge, but that should not stop you from expressing your own conviction. Don’t be afraid to reveal your ignorance. It is nothing to be ashamed of. Don’t hold back an idea or motion because you are afraid you will be voted down. Realize now that you will win some and lose some on this board. That’s democracy. Don’t let a loss in support of your idea discourage you.
3. Information. Decisions are only as good as the information on which they are based. Insist on adequate information before you vote. It is much better to postpone a decision than to rush into something with only partial, incomplete facts. The pastoral staff will do everything possible to give you ALL the information available—even if it hurts. You have a right to any information you wish. Nothing is off limits to you! As a group, or personally, the pastoral staff and board chairman will make available anything you ask for—except confidential, personal information.
4. Respect and Trust. It is necessary to have an attitude of mutual respect and trust. Each member of this board was chosen because you have become known in your church for certain traits of leadership and areas of expertise. Unless we respect and trust one another, there will not be the free and open exchange that is necessary to good decision-making. If you have doubts and questions about the integrity or sincerity of any member of the board, including pastors, express it. Ask questions. Clear the air. This will make our work a joy as friendships develop. We are not adversaries, but teammates trying to win for God.
5. Honesty. Please don’t play games or seek to manipulate. Avoid hidden agendas. This can destroy trust. Be honest, straightforward, and direct.
6. Decision Making. Vote with your head, not your heart. Make decisions based on facts, needs, and careful thinking, rather than on emotional reactions or past experience. Avoid preconceived ideas or assumptions based on a bad experience or accumulated problems through the years. Above all, keep in mind the mission of the church in all your decisions.
7. Cultural Sensitivity. Filter all discussion and decisions through the viewpoint of diverse ethnic groups. Respect the historical background and special needs of others.
8. Wounded Feelings. Sometimes those who have never served on a church board are surprised at the candor, openness, and willingness to disagree with a fellow board member. But that is one thing that makes boards effective. Effective members do not “wear their feelings on their sleeves.” They come up with ideas that they actually expect will probably be shot down rather rapidly. Each member tries not to become personally involved with his/her own ideas and opinions. They realize that the open discussion in the board will expose weakness in arguments and ideas. This results in better decisions than those any member might develop alone. Another sensitivity comes from those who feel, “They never use my ideas.” That isn’t true! Your ideas will undoubtedly stimulate the ideas of others, and thrown into the mix of all the ideas, yours will be a part of the overall development even though your idea may not be the exact version of the finished product.
9. Handling of Board Decisions. When a decision is reached that involves members of the church, do not assume you are free to communicate that information. The pastor or other person assigned by the board has the responsibility of disseminating that information. Example: Suppose the board votes to make a change in leadership of a ministry of the church. You tell a friend of yours, who tells a friend, who tells the person—and the pastor has not yet made contact. You can imagine how the person will feel, getting the information through an unofficial channel instead of the proper channel.
10. Confidentiality of Discussions. No member of the Church Board should be placed in the unenviable position of having a confidential statement he made in board come back to him on the telephone, street, office, or anywhere! The various viewpoints may be reported, but it is unethical to mention names. After all, that person may have been persuaded by discussion, and ended up voting differently than what he or she expressed to the group earlier in the discussion.
11. Ministry Representation. Some people are members of the board because they represent a specific ministry of the church, such as music ministry or children’s ministry. Such board members are expected to be fully informed about the ministry they represent and to make sure the board is fully informed of the way that ministry will be affected by any action or decision the board is considering. However, the members of the Church Board are expected to represent the best interests of the entire church, without making every decision based on the priority of what would be best for the specific ministry or group with which they might be identified. Try to see the big picture and make decisions on what is best for the church as a whole, rather than voting only the little picture. We will have a stronger church if each do so.
12. Support of the Majority Vote. Quoting again from Dr. Firth: “But once a committee has given its group judgment to a problem and decided on a solution by a democratic majority vote, the dissenting individuals no longer have the right to dissent. …The person who cannot do that has no business serving on the committee and is lacking in ethical values.” Dr. Firth is quite firm, and some even say he is being too hard. Consider the problem should a board member tell others: “I’m sorry the board decided the way it did. I certainly don’t agree and didn’t vote that way.” Immediately he has set himself up against the board. Loyalty involves support even though it may not have been our first choice for the board to vote the way it did.
Attendance
Attendance is very important at all board meetings. At times there will be valid reasons why you cannot attend. It that is the case, please notify the secretary or board chairman. We hope you will realize the importance of attendance and try your very best to be present at each meeting. If you are absent without notification for three consecutive meetings the board may vote to replace you.
Notice of Meetings
You will receive a notice of the next meeting one to four weeks in advance. At its first board meeting the board itself should establish a particular day of the month, such as the first Tuesday or second Thursday, when the board will meet—unless a different date is voted at one board meeting for the next board meeting.
Minutes
Minutes of each Church Board meeting will be handed out at each meeting. You should obtain a notebook for the purpose of keeping your minutes. At times the minutes will contain privileged information (such as a personnel problem). We do ask that you keep this book of minutes “for your eyes only.”
Budgets
A part of the work of the Church Board involves money. At each meeting we usually go through the financial statement pertaining to ministry, presented by the Finance Committee Chairman. At first the statement may seem strange and unfriendly unless you have an accounting background. In time, the statement will begin to make sense and you will be able to plot the financial course of the church.
Conflict of Interest
Even though most board members are not employees of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, every board member must avoid any conflict of interest that would result in personal favor or gain. An example of a conflict of interest would be encouraging and voting for the church to purchase a product or service from which you would profit, or voting for the church to discard or sell something below market value, that you might acquire and use to your advantage. Though our local church members may not sign a conflict of interest statement, they are encouraged to read the North American Division Policy Statement on conflict of interest.
Program Evaluation
A major function of the Support and Accountability and Church Ministries Board is to evaluate the programs of the church. Programs that are proving ineffective will be reviewed by the boards, and solutions will be sought. Those that continue to be ineffective will be discarded, while those proving effective will be encouraged and expanded. It is also the responsibility of the Church Boards to see areas of need and suggest and implement programs that will meet those needs.
Final Responsibility
In the final analysis, it is your responsibility as a board member to review all ministry operations of the local Seventh-day Adventist Church Board and to act on behalf of all the members. Given such an important assignment, your dedication to the church and this position is extremely important. As you vote on issues that affect this church its outreach, please do so knowing that the Holy Spirit is beside you ready to guide you.
Resource Materials
The following resources are recommended for your ministry. You can purchase these by calling AdventSource (800-328-0525), the Adventist Book Center (800-765-6955) or your local Christian bookstore.
Radical Disciples for Revolutionary Churches, by Russell Burrill. The author explores what it takes to produce church members who want to be participants, not spectators, and proposes a major change in how to “do evangelism.”
Revolution in the Church, by Russell Burrill. Believing that both pastors and laity have strayed far from their biblically assigned roles, the author proposes a radical change in how Adventists “do church.”
Revolutionized Church of the 21st Century, by Russell Burill. Experience the explosive power of a church built on relationships.
Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual. All operating policies and procedures as voted by the General Conference.
The Power of Vision, by George Barna. Discover how developing a shared vision can ignite your board, pastors and church members.
Introduction
Welcome to membership on the local Seventh-day Adventist Church Ministries Board! You have accepted an important responsibility. This board has been charged by the members of the local Seventh-day Adventist Church with the ministries operation of the church.
With such an important responsibility, persons selected must individually portray in their personal and corporate life qualities of spirituality, fairness and good judgment. You have been chosen because your church believes you exemplify these qualities.
*Any mention of “The Church Board” is understood to mean “Church Ministries Board” in this document.
Assumptions
As you begin functioning as a member of a local Seventh-day Adventist Church Board, you should know that your church assumes:
1. That you are accepting this responsibility willingly. Only willing members can effectively perform the services that will be necessary.
2. That you are a loyal and faithful member of this Seventh-day Adventist congregation.
3. That you are faithful in your stewardship responsibilities in terms of time, talent, and financial means.
4. That you will seek the Lord for divine guidance and courage to make necessary decisions.
5. That you will be ethical and professional in handling the information and decisions you will confront. You should be loyal to God, loyal to the pastor, and loyal to the members.
6. That you will put the interests of the church above any personal interest, for only thus can selfless service be rendered to the church and to Jesus, the Lord of the Church.
7. That you will always remember the church’s mission in making decisions.
Suggestions for Effectiveness
1. Commitment. A deep, genuine commitment to the Lord Jesus is the most important part of our work on this board. Our minds are to be the link through which God communicates His will to his church. Please spend time in earnest prayer before coming to each board meeting, so that your mind and spirit are in tune with the Divine.
2. Participation. In his book, Guidelines for Committee and Board Members, Dr. Robert Firth states: “No doubt there are places where silence is golden, but not on a committee. A committee member who sits through a meeting without saying something to aid the discussion is a useless committee member. The committee meetings is a place to exchange ideas, to create new ones, to hammer ideas into solutions, or to set a course of action.” page 48. However, Dr Firth balances things by cautioning against going to the other extreme: “There are those who talk a great deal at committee meetings and say virtually nothing. They might call such talking participation, but few others would. Participation assumes the making of a worthwhile contribution to the discussion.” Don’t be afraid to speak your conviction or disagree with others. This includes disagreeing with anyone, including the pastor. We are only as strong as our willingness to express opinions and convictions. We are all equal on this church board. Every voice carries equal weight. Every vote has equal weight. Some have a wider range of knowledge, but that should not stop you from expressing your own conviction. Don’t be afraid to reveal your ignorance. It is nothing to be ashamed of. Don’t hold back an idea or motion because you are afraid you will be voted down. Realize now that you will win some and lose some on this board. That’s democracy. Don’t let a loss in support of your idea discourage you.
3. Information. Decisions are only as good as the information on which they are based. Insist on adequate information before you vote. It is much better to postpone a decision than to rush into something with only partial, incomplete facts. The pastoral staff will do everything possible to give you ALL the information available—even if it hurts. You have a right to any information you wish. Nothing is off limits to you! As a group, or personally, the pastoral staff and board chairman will make available anything you ask for—except confidential, personal information.
4. Respect and Trust. It is necessary to have an attitude of mutual respect and trust. Each member of this board was chosen because you have become known in your church for certain traits of leadership and areas of expertise. Unless we respect and trust one another, there will not be the free and open exchange that is necessary to good decision-making. If you have doubts and questions about the integrity or sincerity of any member of the board, including pastors, express it. Ask questions. Clear the air. This will make our work a joy as friendships develop. We are not adversaries, but teammates trying to win for God.
5. Honesty. Please don’t play games or seek to manipulate. Avoid hidden agendas. This can destroy trust. Be honest, straightforward, and direct.
6. Decision Making. Vote with your head, not your heart. Make decisions based on facts, needs, and careful thinking, rather than on emotional reactions or past experience. Avoid preconceived ideas or assumptions based on a bad experience or accumulated problems through the years. Above all, keep in mind the mission of the church in all your decisions.
7. Cultural Sensitivity. Filter all discussion and decisions through the viewpoint of diverse ethnic groups. Respect the historical background and special needs of others.
8. Wounded Feelings. Sometimes those who have never served on a church board are surprised at the candor, openness, and willingness to disagree with a fellow board member. But that is one thing that makes boards effective. Effective members do not “wear their feelings on their sleeves.” They come up with ideas that they actually expect will probably be shot down rather rapidly. Each member tries not to become personally involved with his/her own ideas and opinions. They realize that the open discussion in the board will expose weakness in arguments and ideas. This results in better decisions than those any member might develop alone. Another sensitivity comes from those who feel, “They never use my ideas.” That isn’t true! Your ideas will undoubtedly stimulate the ideas of others, and thrown into the mix of all the ideas, yours will be a part of the overall development even though your idea may not be the exact version of the finished product.
9. Handling of Board Decisions. When a decision is reached that involves members of the church, do not assume you are free to communicate that information. The pastor or other person assigned by the board has the responsibility of disseminating that information. Example: Suppose the board votes to make a change in leadership of a ministry of the church. You tell a friend of yours, who tells a friend, who tells the person—and the pastor has not yet made contact. You can imagine how the person will feel, getting the information through an unofficial channel instead of the proper channel.
10. Confidentiality of Discussions. No member of the Church Board should be placed in the unenviable position of having a confidential statement he made in board come back to him on the telephone, street, office, or anywhere! The various viewpoints may be reported, but it is unethical to mention names. After all, that person may have been persuaded by discussion, and ended up voting differently than what he or she expressed to the group earlier in the discussion.
11. Ministry Representation. Some people are members of the board because they represent a specific ministry of the church, such as music ministry or children’s ministry. Such board members are expected to be fully informed about the ministry they represent and to make sure the board is fully informed of the way that ministry will be affected by any action or decision the board is considering. However, the members of the Church Board are expected to represent the best interests of the entire church, without making every decision based on the priority of what would be best for the specific ministry or group with which they might be identified. Try to see the big picture and make decisions on what is best for the church as a whole, rather than voting only the little picture. We will have a stronger church if each do so.
12. Support of the Majority Vote. Quoting again from Dr. Firth: “But once a committee has given its group judgment to a problem and decided on a solution by a democratic majority vote, the dissenting individuals no longer have the right to dissent. …The person who cannot do that has no business serving on the committee and is lacking in ethical values.” Dr. Firth is quite firm, and some even say he is being too hard. Consider the problem should a board member tell others: “I’m sorry the board decided the way it did. I certainly don’t agree and didn’t vote that way.” Immediately he has set himself up against the board. Loyalty involves support even though it may not have been our first choice for the board to vote the way it did.
Attendance
Attendance is very important at all board meetings. At times there will be valid reasons why you cannot attend. It that is the case, please notify the secretary or board chairman. We hope you will realize the importance of attendance and try your very best to be present at each meeting. If you are absent without notification for three consecutive meetings the board may vote to replace you.
Notice of Meetings
You will receive a notice of the next meeting one to four weeks in advance. At its first board meeting the board itself should establish a particular day of the month, such as the first Tuesday or second Thursday, when the board will meet—unless a different date is voted at one board meeting for the next board meeting.
Minutes
Minutes of each Church Board meeting will be handed out at each meeting. You should obtain a notebook for the purpose of keeping your minutes. At times the minutes will contain privileged information (such as a personnel problem). We do ask that you keep this book of minutes “for your eyes only.”
Budgets
A part of the work of the Church Board involves money. At each meeting we usually go through the financial statement pertaining to ministry, presented by the Finance Committee Chairman. At first the statement may seem strange and unfriendly unless you have an accounting background. In time, the statement will begin to make sense and you will be able to plot the financial course of the church.
Conflict of Interest
Even though most board members are not employees of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, every board member must avoid any conflict of interest that would result in personal favor or gain. An example of a conflict of interest would be encouraging and voting for the church to purchase a product or service from which you would profit, or voting for the church to discard or sell something below market value, that you might acquire and use to your advantage. Though our local church members may not sign a conflict of interest statement, they are encouraged to read the North American Division Policy Statement on conflict of interest.
Program Evaluation
A major function of the Support and Accountability and Church Ministries Board is to evaluate the programs of the church. Programs that are proving ineffective will be reviewed by the boards, and solutions will be sought. Those that continue to be ineffective will be discarded, while those proving effective will be encouraged and expanded. It is also the responsibility of the Church Boards to see areas of need and suggest and implement programs that will meet those needs.
Final Responsibility
In the final analysis, it is your responsibility as a board member to review all ministry operations of the local Seventh-day Adventist Church Board and to act on behalf of all the members. Given such an important assignment, your dedication to the church and this position is extremely important. As you vote on issues that affect this church its outreach, please do so knowing that the Holy Spirit is beside you ready to guide you.
Resource Materials
The following resources are recommended for your ministry. You can purchase these by calling AdventSource (800-328-0525), the Adventist Book Center (800-765-6955) or your local Christian bookstore.
Radical Disciples for Revolutionary Churches, by Russell Burrill. The author explores what it takes to produce church members who want to be participants, not spectators, and proposes a major change in how to “do evangelism.”
Revolution in the Church, by Russell Burrill. Believing that both pastors and laity have strayed far from their biblically assigned roles, the author proposes a radical change in how Adventists “do church.”
Revolutionized Church of the 21st Century, by Russell Burill. Experience the explosive power of a church built on relationships.
Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual. All operating policies and procedures as voted by the General Conference.
The Power of Vision, by George Barna. Discover how developing a shared vision can ignite your board, pastors and church members.
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 14
The Church Ministries and Accountability Boards met for the first time in joint session on March 2, 2008. The most significant item of business Pastor DeSilva presented at that meeting was a document he termed a “Code of Ethics.” He asserted that there had been “a lot of unethical behavior lately,” and that this document was intended to remedy this “problem.” Some portions of this document were relatively innocuous; others were extremely disturbing. (See the following posts, “Code of Ethics” and “Code of Ethics Analysis.”) Pastor DeSilva read through it, then opened the floor for discussion.
One of the elders raised his hand. Upon being recognized he paused, prefaced his comments with the statement, “You probably don’t want to hear what I have to say,” and paused again.
Rather than encouraging him to continue, Pastor DeSilva callously responded, “You’re probably right,” and acknowledged the next hand. The slighted elder collected his belongings and quietly left the room. This action was met with a ripple of surprise among the assembled church leaders.
Pastor DeSilva, realizing his rudeness but unwilling to acknowledge it, tried to “play it off” as being misbehavior on the part of the elder. He made a sanctimonious speech about how anyone who had an issue with something that was being discussed had an obligation to work through it within the meeting rather than walking out. He then “generously” declared that in light of the elder’s many years of service that he would go the extra mile and try to talk with him about what was bothering him. Pastor DeSilva decided that the “Code of Ethics” should be tabled until the next Ministry Board meeting so that he could have an opportunity to talk with the elder before it was voted.
Next: Two Faces
Religious
One of the elders raised his hand. Upon being recognized he paused, prefaced his comments with the statement, “You probably don’t want to hear what I have to say,” and paused again.
Rather than encouraging him to continue, Pastor DeSilva callously responded, “You’re probably right,” and acknowledged the next hand. The slighted elder collected his belongings and quietly left the room. This action was met with a ripple of surprise among the assembled church leaders.
Pastor DeSilva, realizing his rudeness but unwilling to acknowledge it, tried to “play it off” as being misbehavior on the part of the elder. He made a sanctimonious speech about how anyone who had an issue with something that was being discussed had an obligation to work through it within the meeting rather than walking out. He then “generously” declared that in light of the elder’s many years of service that he would go the extra mile and try to talk with him about what was bothering him. Pastor DeSilva decided that the “Code of Ethics” should be tabled until the next Ministry Board meeting so that he could have an opportunity to talk with the elder before it was voted.
Next: Two Faces
Religious
Friday, June 12, 2009
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 10
"In order for a man to become a successful minister, something more than book knowledge is essential. The laborer for souls needs integrity, intelligence, industry, energy, and tact. All these are highly essential for the success of a minister of Christ. No man with these qualifications can be inferior, but will have commanding influence. Unless the laborer in God's cause can gain the confidence of those for whom he is laboring, he can do but little good" (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 3, p. 553).
"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. If we see no necessity for harmonious action, and are disorderly, undisciplined, and disorganized in our course of action, angels, who are thoroughly organized and move in perfect order, cannot work for us successfully. They turn away in grief, for they are not authorized to bless confusion, distraction, and disorganization. All who desire the cooperation of the heavenly messengers, must work in unison with them. 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" (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 649, 650).
"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. If we see no necessity for harmonious action, and are disorderly, undisciplined, and disorganized in our course of action, angels, who are thoroughly organized and move in perfect order, cannot work for us successfully. They turn away in grief, for they are not authorized to bless confusion, distraction, and disorganization. All who desire the cooperation of the heavenly messengers, must work in unison with them. 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" (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 649, 650).
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 9
"I saw that this door at which the enemy comes in to perplex and trouble the flock can be shut. I inquired of the angel how it could be closed. He said, "The church must flee to God's Word and become established upon gospel order, which has been overlooked and neglected." This is indispensably necessary in order to bring the church into the unity of the faith" (Early Writings, p.100).
"The principle for which the disciples stood so fearlessly when, in answer to the command not to speak any more in the name of Jesus, they declared, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye," [ACTS 4:19.] is the same that the adherents of the gospel struggled to maintain in the days of the Reformation. When in 1529 the German princes assembled at the Diet of Spires, there was presented the emperor's decree restricting religious liberty, and prohibiting all further dissemination of the reformed doctrines. It seemed that the hope of the world was about to be crushed out. Would the princes accept the decree? Should the light of the gospel be shut out from the multitudes still in darkness? Mighty issues for the world were at stake. Those who had accepted the reformed faith met together, and their unanimous decision was, "Let us reject this decree. In matters of conscience the majority has no power." [D'AUBIGNE: "HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION," BOOK 13, CHAP. 5.]
"This principle we in our day are firmly to maintain. The banner of truth and religious liberty held aloft by the founders of the gospel church and by God's witnesses during the centuries that have passed since then, has, in this last conflict, been committed to our hands. The responsibility for this great gift rests with those whom God has blessed with a knowledge of His word. We are to receive this word as supreme authority" (Gospel Workers, p. 389).
"The principle for which the disciples stood so fearlessly when, in answer to the command not to speak any more in the name of Jesus, they declared, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye," [ACTS 4:19.] is the same that the adherents of the gospel struggled to maintain in the days of the Reformation. When in 1529 the German princes assembled at the Diet of Spires, there was presented the emperor's decree restricting religious liberty, and prohibiting all further dissemination of the reformed doctrines. It seemed that the hope of the world was about to be crushed out. Would the princes accept the decree? Should the light of the gospel be shut out from the multitudes still in darkness? Mighty issues for the world were at stake. Those who had accepted the reformed faith met together, and their unanimous decision was, "Let us reject this decree. In matters of conscience the majority has no power." [D'AUBIGNE: "HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION," BOOK 13, CHAP. 5.]
"This principle we in our day are firmly to maintain. The banner of truth and religious liberty held aloft by the founders of the gospel church and by God's witnesses during the centuries that have passed since then, has, in this last conflict, been committed to our hands. The responsibility for this great gift rests with those whom God has blessed with a knowledge of His word. We are to receive this word as supreme authority" (Gospel Workers, p. 389).
Sunday, June 7, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 13
When the nominating committee resumed its work after the January business meeting one of the members promptly brought up the matter of how many people ought to be on the Support and Accountability Board. Up to that point in the nominating process Pastor DeSilva had told the nominating committee that the Accountability Board was supposed to have five members, period. However, he had just told the business meeting that the precise number was up to the nominating committee. There were several members of the nominating committee who had been present at the business meeting and thought the arguments for a larger Accountability Board made a lot of sense.
There was an extensive discussion of the matter in which Pastor DeSilva tried very hard to talk the committee out of increasing the number. When it became clear from the comments around the table that many favored increasing the number the discussion turned to whether there should be two additional members or three. Pastor DeSilva spoke up once again to insist that there could not be three more because that would make the total number of members even and create a potential problem with tied votes. [This was faulty reasoning because the senior pastor was supposed to be only an ex officio member of the committee—in other words, he was only supposed to be able to vote if there was a tie. If there were an odd number of members not counting the ex officio pastor there would be very little likelihood of there ever being a tie in the first place. With an even number of regular members, however, the chance of the pastor being an active voter to break ties would increase substantially.] The matter was finally put to a vote and the nominating committee decided that the Accountability Board should have seven members.
When the outcome of the vote was announced Pastor DeSilva was heard to mutter under his breath, “That’s too many!”
The nominating committee presented its report at the end of February 2008. In the rush to have the nominating process over numerous positions were left vacant on the theory that they would immediately be taken up by the standing nominating committee. This did not happen. It would be months before the standing nominating committee would make any report, and when it did it was only to add three more members to the finance committee. (Interestingly, these additions happened after the longtime head of the finance committee, who opposed the governance change, was told there were no more vacancies. The former chairman had relinquished the position temporarily to be an interim paid bookkeeper for the church between regular employees, which had made him temporarily ineligible for election during the regular nominating process, but he had quit the job before the three additional committee members were recommended by the standing nominating committee.) To this day the standing nominating committee has not made any recommendations on any of the remaining vacant positions, including the entire roster of Sabbath School Superintendents.
Next: Codified
Religious
There was an extensive discussion of the matter in which Pastor DeSilva tried very hard to talk the committee out of increasing the number. When it became clear from the comments around the table that many favored increasing the number the discussion turned to whether there should be two additional members or three. Pastor DeSilva spoke up once again to insist that there could not be three more because that would make the total number of members even and create a potential problem with tied votes. [This was faulty reasoning because the senior pastor was supposed to be only an ex officio member of the committee—in other words, he was only supposed to be able to vote if there was a tie. If there were an odd number of members not counting the ex officio pastor there would be very little likelihood of there ever being a tie in the first place. With an even number of regular members, however, the chance of the pastor being an active voter to break ties would increase substantially.] The matter was finally put to a vote and the nominating committee decided that the Accountability Board should have seven members.
When the outcome of the vote was announced Pastor DeSilva was heard to mutter under his breath, “That’s too many!”
The nominating committee presented its report at the end of February 2008. In the rush to have the nominating process over numerous positions were left vacant on the theory that they would immediately be taken up by the standing nominating committee. This did not happen. It would be months before the standing nominating committee would make any report, and when it did it was only to add three more members to the finance committee. (Interestingly, these additions happened after the longtime head of the finance committee, who opposed the governance change, was told there were no more vacancies. The former chairman had relinquished the position temporarily to be an interim paid bookkeeper for the church between regular employees, which had made him temporarily ineligible for election during the regular nominating process, but he had quit the job before the three additional committee members were recommended by the standing nominating committee.) To this day the standing nominating committee has not made any recommendations on any of the remaining vacant positions, including the entire roster of Sabbath School Superintendents.
Next: Codified
Religious
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Epic, Pt 12
The first business meeting of the new year was held on January 28, 2008. It was announced by Pastor DeSilva as a purely informational meeting to explain the new governance system to any who had questions. He specifically stated in his official verbal announcements that there would be no votes of any kind taken at the meeting, but it was evident to us that that was not truly his intent.
There was a relatively popular member of the congregation whom Pastor DeSilva disliked. He had managed to find evidence of some legitimate wrongdoing on the part of the popular individual and was determined to disfellowship the individual while no one was looking. The information came to us from multiple reliable sources that Pastor DeSilva’s intent was to hold an official meeting during bad January weather without any strong agenda to draw a crowd so that he could have the room to himself with just a few hand-picked followers who would vote the way he wanted. That way he could do the dirty deed without any fuss or notice. We should note at this point that none of the Church Manual-stipulated reclamation efforts had been made with this individual prior to this attempt at disfellowshipment.
When we heard of this dastardly plot we launched a “get out the vote” campaign. It was successful; the room was packed. Pastor DeSilva, seeing his secret, easy vote go up in smoke, didn’t bring up the proposed disfellowshipment. Instead we had a prolonged discussion about the nuances of the new governance system.
Pastor DeSilva had another new chart to issue (included below) and discussion centered around the duties and membership of the two new “boards.” When questioned about the number of people to be on the Support and Accountability Board, Pastor DeSilva stated that there would be five. The questioner expressed concern that it would not be possible to find in only five individuals all the skills required to perform the duties listed for the Accountability Board. Several other meeting attendees seconded this concern. Pastor DeSilva, never one to defend an unpopular position against a fair majority, attempted to brush off the critique by saying that the exact number of members would be determined by the nominating committee.
Next: Feet to the Fire
Religious
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
News Flash
The Group has been granted a hearing before the Potomac Conference Executive Committee! We are scheduled to plead our case on May 28. We ask special prayer support leading up to and during this meeting.
June 1 Update:
The Group has been informed that the Potomac Conference has come to some sort of tentative conclusion. Specifics are being withheld pending another meeting of the Executive Committee in two weeks, when the Conference's action will be finalized. The Group has not been invited to send representation to this next meeting.
June 22 Update:
The conference response was meaningless in that it chose to address a handful of cosmetic symptoms of the problem (such as renaming the Church Ministries Board to be the Church Board) while ignoring the core issues. Full details will be provided in their proper place in The Epic.
June 1 Update:
The Group has been informed that the Potomac Conference has come to some sort of tentative conclusion. Specifics are being withheld pending another meeting of the Executive Committee in two weeks, when the Conference's action will be finalized. The Group has not been invited to send representation to this next meeting.
June 22 Update:
The conference response was meaningless in that it chose to address a handful of cosmetic symptoms of the problem (such as renaming the Church Ministries Board to be the Church Board) while ignoring the core issues. Full details will be provided in their proper place in The Epic.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt 8
Do not lead with harshness and severity, but with respect, kindness, confidence, and love.--You do not feel under sound obligation to God to be patient and kind and respectful toward your ministering brethren and toward every member of the church. They lose confidence in you and then your influence is crippled. You need the kindness, courtesy, meekness, and lowliness of Christ. You have many valuable qualifications that can be perfected for highest service if sanctified to God. You should feel the necessity of approaching your brethren with kindness and courtesy, not with harshness and severity. You do not realize the harm you do by your sharp, domineering spirit toward them" (Pastoral Ministry, p. 53.)
"Those men who are not called of God are generally the very ones that are the most confident that they are so called and that their labors are very important. They go into the field and do not generally exert a good influence; yet in some places they have a measure of success, and this leads them and others to think that they are surely called of God. It is not a positive evidence that men are called of God because they have some success; for angels of God are now moving upon the hearts of His honest children to enlighten their understanding as to the present truth, that they may lay hold upon it and live. And even if self-sent men put themselves where God does not put them and profess to be teachers, and souls receive the truth by hearing them talk it, this is no evidence that they are called of God. The souls who receive the truth from them receive it to be brought into trial and bondage, as they afterward find that these men were not standing in the counsel of God. Even if wicked men talk the truth, some may receive it; but it does not bring those who talked it into any more favor with God. Wicked men are wicked men still, and according to the deception they practiced upon those who were beloved of God, and according to the confusion brought into the church, so will be their punishment; their sins will not remain covered, but will be exposed in the day of God's fierce anger" (Early Writings, pp. 98 & 99).
"These self-sent messengers are a curse to the cause. Honest souls put confidence in them, thinking that they are moving in the counsel of God and that they are in union with the church, and therefore suffer them to administer the ordinances, and, as duty is made plain that they must do their first works, allow themselves to be baptized by them. But when light comes, as it surely will, and they are aware that these men are not what they understood them to be, God's called and chosen messengers, they are thrown into trial and doubt as to the truth they have received and feel that they must learn it all over again; they are troubled and perplexed by the enemy about all their experience, whether God has led them or not, and are not satisfied until they are again baptized and begin anew" (Early Writings, p.99).
"Some are teaching the truth to others, when they themselves need to be taught the first principles of the Christian religion. They are at war with God through his providence. They watch for something to feel bad about; and they never fail to find it, for the faultfinding spirit is in their hearts and controls their lives. They are always dissatisfied. Their work is too hard, they are not appreciated, or they do not receive sufficient compensation. If anything crosses their track, they draw back like pettish children, forgetting that as Christ's servants they should not be affected by the course of any man. This spirit savors of Satan, and those who manifest it are thereby yielding to his control.
"Ministers of this class are a sore affliction to their brethren in the ministry and to the church. They are a constant source of anxiety and care, and the harm they do the cause of God, eternity alone will reveal. You never know where to find them; for they are like the weather-vane, and change with every change of circumstances. One day they appear to be humble and affected by the Spirit of God, and our hopes are awakened; but the next day something occurs which drifts them into another current, and they are harder to get along with than a willful child; for while they are children in self-control, they are men in years and stature, and cannot be corrected like a child. They do not know what harm they do by their want of self-control. While they feel under no obligations to restrain the natural impulses of the heart, what right have they to take the position of guides to the flock? The Lord has said through his apostle, "Make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way." [HEB. 12:13.] Any crooked path the leader may take, prepares the way for the weak to be turned aside from the path of safety.
"These men do not see themselves; for they look through Satan's deceptive glasses. They do not know that they are contending with God by resisting the efforts of his servants in their behalf" (Gospel Workers, pp. 438 & 439).
"Those men who are not called of God are generally the very ones that are the most confident that they are so called and that their labors are very important. They go into the field and do not generally exert a good influence; yet in some places they have a measure of success, and this leads them and others to think that they are surely called of God. It is not a positive evidence that men are called of God because they have some success; for angels of God are now moving upon the hearts of His honest children to enlighten their understanding as to the present truth, that they may lay hold upon it and live. And even if self-sent men put themselves where God does not put them and profess to be teachers, and souls receive the truth by hearing them talk it, this is no evidence that they are called of God. The souls who receive the truth from them receive it to be brought into trial and bondage, as they afterward find that these men were not standing in the counsel of God. Even if wicked men talk the truth, some may receive it; but it does not bring those who talked it into any more favor with God. Wicked men are wicked men still, and according to the deception they practiced upon those who were beloved of God, and according to the confusion brought into the church, so will be their punishment; their sins will not remain covered, but will be exposed in the day of God's fierce anger" (Early Writings, pp. 98 & 99).
"These self-sent messengers are a curse to the cause. Honest souls put confidence in them, thinking that they are moving in the counsel of God and that they are in union with the church, and therefore suffer them to administer the ordinances, and, as duty is made plain that they must do their first works, allow themselves to be baptized by them. But when light comes, as it surely will, and they are aware that these men are not what they understood them to be, God's called and chosen messengers, they are thrown into trial and doubt as to the truth they have received and feel that they must learn it all over again; they are troubled and perplexed by the enemy about all their experience, whether God has led them or not, and are not satisfied until they are again baptized and begin anew" (Early Writings, p.99).
"Some are teaching the truth to others, when they themselves need to be taught the first principles of the Christian religion. They are at war with God through his providence. They watch for something to feel bad about; and they never fail to find it, for the faultfinding spirit is in their hearts and controls their lives. They are always dissatisfied. Their work is too hard, they are not appreciated, or they do not receive sufficient compensation. If anything crosses their track, they draw back like pettish children, forgetting that as Christ's servants they should not be affected by the course of any man. This spirit savors of Satan, and those who manifest it are thereby yielding to his control.
"Ministers of this class are a sore affliction to their brethren in the ministry and to the church. They are a constant source of anxiety and care, and the harm they do the cause of God, eternity alone will reveal. You never know where to find them; for they are like the weather-vane, and change with every change of circumstances. One day they appear to be humble and affected by the Spirit of God, and our hopes are awakened; but the next day something occurs which drifts them into another current, and they are harder to get along with than a willful child; for while they are children in self-control, they are men in years and stature, and cannot be corrected like a child. They do not know what harm they do by their want of self-control. While they feel under no obligations to restrain the natural impulses of the heart, what right have they to take the position of guides to the flock? The Lord has said through his apostle, "Make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way." [HEB. 12:13.] Any crooked path the leader may take, prepares the way for the weak to be turned aside from the path of safety.
"These men do not see themselves; for they look through Satan's deceptive glasses. They do not know that they are contending with God by resisting the efforts of his servants in their behalf" (Gospel Workers, pp. 438 & 439).
Friday, May 1, 2009
In the World but Not of the World
I'm a fifth-generation Adventist. I received all my formal education through Adventist schools. Many of my extended family members are, or have been, church officers. I am, in short, as Adventist as any individual can get, both spiritually and culturally.
I am also more than a little disturbed by the attitudes and positions expressed in the recent comments by "David." First, I am bothered by his assertion that the answer to young-person retention and membership growth in general is a change in, for lack of a better term, "format." Second, I am bothered by the arrogance of his assertion that, "I am likewise not really interested in what our pioneers did or didn't think." Finally, I am bothered by the relativism which pervades his statements.
It is said that the first generation Adventist joins and stays in the church because they have learned and believe in the doctrines, lifestyle, etc. The second generation stays in the church because they learned the doctrines and lifestyle at the same time as their parents and likewise believe in them. The third generation stays in the church because it's tradition. The fourth generation comes along and wonders why they bother. Why is this? Lack of substance transmission.
I've seen the gimmicks church leaders use to try to retain youth. At one point in my childhood Sabbath School involved a religious perversion of Wheel of Fortune, complete with glitter-festooned wheel and cash prizes. I wasn't impressed. When we reached Earliteens we were told that we weren't going to use the quarterly because they figured we already knew the Bible stuff, so we were going to talk about what Earliteens really wanted to discuss-relationships. I was bored stiff. By Youth the leaders were bringing in orange juice, donuts, etc to make us comfortable and you couldn't tell what the leader was trying to do because the older youth were enjoying the social opportunity too loudly. I was bored to tears.
I'm still in the church, but that is in spite of, rather than because of, the "innovations" designed to attract me. These efforts had glitz, but none of the substance and meaning I was yearning for. It is the absence of substance, meaning, and purpose which drives youth out of our church and discourages new converts. No amount of reformatting will cure the exodus, because the reformatting of Growing Healthy Churches is all about externals, not substance.
So how did I break the generational cycle of loss? The lion's share of credit goes to my parents who started my religious instruction in the cradle. They were consistent, persistent, and encouraged intellectual discussion and questioning but were never pushy or dismissive of my ability to understand "grown up things." These efforts were supported by Adventist teachers and other sincere, committed Adventist adults within my parents' circle of friends who practiced what they preached. The bottom line is that I was actually taught the substance of Adventism both intellectually and experiencially, not just the traditions and lifestyle. That is what is needed to stop the loss, not style or governance changes.
"I am likewise not really interested in what our pioneers did or didn't think." There are so many time-honored truths with which to reply to this it is hard to know where to start. "We have nothing to fear for the future except we forget the past," "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it," etc. The pioneers that David is so willing to dismiss were led by God is some very specific and spectacular ways to create this denomination. They were fallible humans like the rest of us but they said and did a lot of things which are worthy of our consideration. They had to be doing something right or Adventism would never have gotten off the ground. The spectacular membership growth which occurred under their watch ought to be enough to send those worried about the present "flat-lining" of the Adventist church in North America running to study their example and learn their secrets. To ignore them is pure arrogance and unmitigated stupidity.
"If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you" (John 15:19).
"They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them" (1 John 4:5).
"Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James 3:4).
Is anyone noticing a pattern here? There is a prevailing attitude in our culture today that "If you feel that it's right for you I have no right to criticize it." This destroys all absolutes. You cannot say that anything is wrong because you might offend somebody. This insidious attitude has oozed its way into the Adventist church and I hear it as the basic premise throughout David's statements. I firmly believe that this is one of the many reasons why we are told to be in the world but not of the world. We must live in the world and interact with its inhabitants, but when we start adopting its philosophies in order to "reach" those outside Adventism it is not us who are converting them--they are converting us. This is the danger warned against in the texts quoted above. Changing our presentation make it more appealing in practice means dumbing it down and hiding our more "controversial" doctrines. This in turn means that those brought into the church under this system don't really understand the fullness of being Adventist. These people then take leadership positions, think they know everything they need to know, and refuse to accept any guidance from more senior Adventists. (By "senior" I mean having been in the church longer, not physical age.) These new leaders then push to do things their way and lead Adventism even further from its origins and central beliefs. This is why the Bible says, "He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil" (1 Timothy 3:6).
What the Adventist church needs is not gimmicks or fresh formats. We need sincere, committed Christian Adventists who not only know but live what they believe. That would be more than enough to retain youth and attract new members.
Religious
I am also more than a little disturbed by the attitudes and positions expressed in the recent comments by "David." First, I am bothered by his assertion that the answer to young-person retention and membership growth in general is a change in, for lack of a better term, "format." Second, I am bothered by the arrogance of his assertion that, "I am likewise not really interested in what our pioneers did or didn't think." Finally, I am bothered by the relativism which pervades his statements.
It is said that the first generation Adventist joins and stays in the church because they have learned and believe in the doctrines, lifestyle, etc. The second generation stays in the church because they learned the doctrines and lifestyle at the same time as their parents and likewise believe in them. The third generation stays in the church because it's tradition. The fourth generation comes along and wonders why they bother. Why is this? Lack of substance transmission.
I've seen the gimmicks church leaders use to try to retain youth. At one point in my childhood Sabbath School involved a religious perversion of Wheel of Fortune, complete with glitter-festooned wheel and cash prizes. I wasn't impressed. When we reached Earliteens we were told that we weren't going to use the quarterly because they figured we already knew the Bible stuff, so we were going to talk about what Earliteens really wanted to discuss-relationships. I was bored stiff. By Youth the leaders were bringing in orange juice, donuts, etc to make us comfortable and you couldn't tell what the leader was trying to do because the older youth were enjoying the social opportunity too loudly. I was bored to tears.
I'm still in the church, but that is in spite of, rather than because of, the "innovations" designed to attract me. These efforts had glitz, but none of the substance and meaning I was yearning for. It is the absence of substance, meaning, and purpose which drives youth out of our church and discourages new converts. No amount of reformatting will cure the exodus, because the reformatting of Growing Healthy Churches is all about externals, not substance.
So how did I break the generational cycle of loss? The lion's share of credit goes to my parents who started my religious instruction in the cradle. They were consistent, persistent, and encouraged intellectual discussion and questioning but were never pushy or dismissive of my ability to understand "grown up things." These efforts were supported by Adventist teachers and other sincere, committed Adventist adults within my parents' circle of friends who practiced what they preached. The bottom line is that I was actually taught the substance of Adventism both intellectually and experiencially, not just the traditions and lifestyle. That is what is needed to stop the loss, not style or governance changes.
"I am likewise not really interested in what our pioneers did or didn't think." There are so many time-honored truths with which to reply to this it is hard to know where to start. "We have nothing to fear for the future except we forget the past," "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it," etc. The pioneers that David is so willing to dismiss were led by God is some very specific and spectacular ways to create this denomination. They were fallible humans like the rest of us but they said and did a lot of things which are worthy of our consideration. They had to be doing something right or Adventism would never have gotten off the ground. The spectacular membership growth which occurred under their watch ought to be enough to send those worried about the present "flat-lining" of the Adventist church in North America running to study their example and learn their secrets. To ignore them is pure arrogance and unmitigated stupidity.
"If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you" (John 15:19).
"They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them" (1 John 4:5).
"Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James 3:4).
Is anyone noticing a pattern here? There is a prevailing attitude in our culture today that "If you feel that it's right for you I have no right to criticize it." This destroys all absolutes. You cannot say that anything is wrong because you might offend somebody. This insidious attitude has oozed its way into the Adventist church and I hear it as the basic premise throughout David's statements. I firmly believe that this is one of the many reasons why we are told to be in the world but not of the world. We must live in the world and interact with its inhabitants, but when we start adopting its philosophies in order to "reach" those outside Adventism it is not us who are converting them--they are converting us. This is the danger warned against in the texts quoted above. Changing our presentation make it more appealing in practice means dumbing it down and hiding our more "controversial" doctrines. This in turn means that those brought into the church under this system don't really understand the fullness of being Adventist. These people then take leadership positions, think they know everything they need to know, and refuse to accept any guidance from more senior Adventists. (By "senior" I mean having been in the church longer, not physical age.) These new leaders then push to do things their way and lead Adventism even further from its origins and central beliefs. This is why the Bible says, "He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil" (1 Timothy 3:6).
What the Adventist church needs is not gimmicks or fresh formats. We need sincere, committed Christian Adventists who not only know but live what they believe. That would be more than enough to retain youth and attract new members.
Religious
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
A Word From New Zealand
Growing Healthy Churches? Part 1
A short summary of the “Growing Healthy Churches” (GHC) method of Paul D. Borden from an Adventist perspective
Presenter: Tim Matsis
Location: Internet
Delivery: 2009-04-23 15:00Z
Publication: GreatControversy.org 2009-04-23 15:00Z
Type: Article
URL: http://greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/matt-ghc1.php
This article examines the Growing Healthy Churches (“GHC”) initiative from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective. GHC is the work of Baptist minister Dr Paul Borden. The following section contains a short summary of GHC and how, in the author’s experience, it has been implemented in an Adventist context. It will be followed by a more detailed analysis of GHC in comparison with accepted Adventist ideology.
What is GHC?
GHC is a set of processes whereby a leader is enabled to convince a congregation that they can achieve a utopia of “growth” and “health” in their organisation by undertaking a reorganisation.
GHC is premised on the notion that the key measure of success in a church is “growth”, meaning growth in church attendance and growth in financial contributions. “Health”, the other catchword in its title, is essentially a repetition of the ideals of increased attendance and financial giving. As Dr Borden says, “all healthy churches grow”.
A GHC “intervention” typically targets churches where there are some problems, although any church can be used if a pretext for implementing the programme can be established. In most cases, a dissatisfaction with the status quo is sufficient pretext. GHC is presented as the answer to whatever problem exists.
What may happen if my church adopts GHC?
A GHC reorganisation may involve:
A change in pastor. For example, if the pastor is not in favour of GHC, he may be replaced.
A change in power. For example, if the pastor’s job is to lead the church, more power must be given to the pastor to spend, to appoint and remove church officers and to determine other aspects of church operations.
A change in church structures. For example, to give the pastor more power there may be a need to do away with or modify the rules for nominating committees or regular business meetings. To give the local church more power in relation to the denomination, there may even be an attempt to establish the local church as a separate incorporated entity. The local church may adopt its own “bylaws” and vote to do away with all or some of the Church Manual. Tools such as the Church Manual are thought to restrain the pastor’s authority and the local church’s plans.
A change in church ideology. For example, to change the way people engage in church activities there is a need to change the way church members think about God, the pastor and the relative values they have. Is the pastor a “shepherd” or a “leader”? Is God “weak” or “strong”, a lion or a lamb? What is more important “faithfulness” or “fruitfulness” (increased baptisms and financial contributions)? If a church values “faithfulness” but is not growing fast enough, then they need to be re-educated to value “fruitfulness”. If a church is faithfully presenting the message but people are not joining then we need to abandon “culturally irrelevant” methods and use the ones that “work”. There may be changes in church sermons, music, or buildings. Change may also be achieved through training, the use of surveys, changes in titles and terms used in church work (e.g. “pastor”, or “leader”?), reading books by Adventist or non-Adventist authors and silencing existing personnel who do not support the changes.
A change in local church leadership. For example, if existing leaders are not fully supportive of changes that the pastor wants to implement, whether this is because of personality differences or because of biblical convictions, those leaders need to be removed to enable the pastor to “lead”.
A change in financial priorities. For example, it is proposed that the church does not exist to serve the denomination, therefore money for the worldwide work of the church may need to be kept in house to fulfil the “vision” of the local church.
A change in denominational loyalty. For example, in addition to shelving parts of the Church Manual, loyalty to the denomination and to distinctive beliefs is played down so that the local church can feel comfortable with the “vision” it has created for itself. Also, this allows members to be more open minded to non-Adventist teachers who have ideas the pastor wants to implement.
What methodology might be used to bring about these changes?
In order to achieve the above changes the following means may be employed:
Appoint a pastor who is in favour of GHC. GHC is leader-centred and therefore finding a pastor who will carry out the plan is essential. In an Adventist context, if the Conference leadership is behind GHC they may try to replace your pastor if they think your church membership is open to implementing the programme.
Survey the local leaders. Find out who is in favour of change and who isn’t, who will support the pastor with the new direction and who won’t. Encourage them to join in but let them know that if they don’t, their leadership future with the church will need to be reviewed.
Create chaos in a church. This is a major part of the plan. Emotional imbalance and crises are strong fuel for bringing about change. If a church can be frightened by threats of losing their pastor, public opinion surveys, declining membership, financial ruin or just plain lack of unity, they will be prepared to look for a solution. People who have worked together in a church for years will not be prepared to take decisive steps against their “family” members in church leadership unless they have a strong incentive to do so. Creating “emotional imbalance” and uncertainty provides this fuel. In the experience of the writer, introducing suspect forms of worship in the church can help to create this uncertainty and division.
Tell stories. Leaders tell stories to sell the “dream”. The churches that adopt GHC have good stories, the ones who stick with the status quo, have bad stories. Create a picture in the minds of church members that says they must chose GHC or else their church will die.
Bring in experts. “Men in black” carry significant weight, particularly with Adventists. A Conference president, a Union president, pastors generally, can all influence a church heavily. Unless a church is united in its views and biblically literate, the uncertainty created will lead the average church member to seek security with those in authority.
Get commitment. A series of business meetings may be held, where people are asked to vote on the programme and also to change leadership in the church. The church may be asked to pay a fee to the Conference to ensure their commitment to the GHC restructure. Leaders taking office may be asked to sign a pledge of loyalty to the pastor and/or GHC.
What will happen after GHC has been implemented?
Once the church has voted to adopt GHC, it is a matter of keeping the momentum going so that those on board will continue to believe and act in harmony with the plan by undertaking the required restructuring. This is done by giving positive reports, rewarding the “in group” with public praise and involvement in church life. As numbers have become the key measure of success, and having probably created some turmoil to get this far, the “in group” have likely become fairly committed. The pastor will have to hold them together by keeping the “vision” in front of them and reminding them of the consequences of going back. Those in the “out group” are generally excluded from church life and it is hoped that they will leave and find another church which suits them.
Someone promoting the programme, may be tempted to assure you that, even though there are some objectionable features to GHC, they will only be taking the good parts while leaving the nasty bits. However, by now, you will have seen that the plan relies on aggressive and decisive measures being taken to achieve real “change”. Consequently, the plan suffers from the equivalent of what creationists call “irreducible complexity”. To remove any part of the plan allows dissenting voices to re-emerge, the plan could be derailed, and the church may revert to what it knows—namely, Adventism. This is particularly true in regard to the governance structure of the church, as Borden himself says:
...failure to adopt a new structure will eventually stifle the implementation of a new mission and vision.
Note this also, that if you are promised that if the church doesn’t like it, they can go back to a traditional model after a period of time—this is merely another selling tactic to get your church to sign up. A bit like buying on credit. Even if the leader is sincere, it is possible that things will change so radically under GHC that they can never be reversed. Your church may be demolished and relocated, the local community may gain a negative view of the church and relationships may become so soured with former church members that, even if there is deep and sincere repentance, the church’s work may be seriously retarded and members may be lost from the church permanently.
Conclusion
There are essentially two problems with GHC. The first is that it is unbiblical and the second is that it is against the Adventist rules of operation contained in the Church Manual. Both flaws may be effectively exposed in the local church because in an Adventist context, the adoption of the GHC programme is dependent upon churches being convinced that the plan is both sound and advantageous to the church. It cannot be imposed by a Conference.
However, even after adoption, the implementation of GHC is restrained by the binding and detailed procedures contained in the Church Manual. This will set the church at odds with the denomination at large. Like all rules, however, there must be a willingness to enforce them and if GHC is being promoted at a Conference level, or in some cases, at Union level, you will need to seek assistance from the Division or General Conference.
Above all else—pray. “He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might He increaseth strength” (Isaiah 40:29). God has both you and His church under His watching care.
Our next part will offer a more detailed analysis citing material from Dr Borden’s book, Hit the Bullseye, contrasting that with Adventist polity.
Endnotes
Paul D. Borden, Hit the Bullseye—How Denominations Can Aim the Congregation at the Mission Field, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2003), p. 16.
Ibid., p. 126. GCO
© 2009 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.
Tim Matsis is a lawyer who lectures in law, leadership and business at the Southern Institute of Technology in Invercargill, New Zealand. In addition to serving in his local church, he has also being involved as a lay member at Conference and Division level. He is currently doing further study in the field of Theology and Ministry. He is married to Leslea and has a two year old son named Samuel.
A short summary of the “Growing Healthy Churches” (GHC) method of Paul D. Borden from an Adventist perspective
Presenter: Tim Matsis
Location: Internet
Delivery: 2009-04-23 15:00Z
Publication: GreatControversy.org 2009-04-23 15:00Z
Type: Article
URL: http://greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/matt-ghc1.php
This article examines the Growing Healthy Churches (“GHC”) initiative from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective. GHC is the work of Baptist minister Dr Paul Borden. The following section contains a short summary of GHC and how, in the author’s experience, it has been implemented in an Adventist context. It will be followed by a more detailed analysis of GHC in comparison with accepted Adventist ideology.
What is GHC?
GHC is a set of processes whereby a leader is enabled to convince a congregation that they can achieve a utopia of “growth” and “health” in their organisation by undertaking a reorganisation.
GHC is premised on the notion that the key measure of success in a church is “growth”, meaning growth in church attendance and growth in financial contributions. “Health”, the other catchword in its title, is essentially a repetition of the ideals of increased attendance and financial giving. As Dr Borden says, “all healthy churches grow”.
A GHC “intervention” typically targets churches where there are some problems, although any church can be used if a pretext for implementing the programme can be established. In most cases, a dissatisfaction with the status quo is sufficient pretext. GHC is presented as the answer to whatever problem exists.
What may happen if my church adopts GHC?
A GHC reorganisation may involve:
A change in pastor. For example, if the pastor is not in favour of GHC, he may be replaced.
A change in power. For example, if the pastor’s job is to lead the church, more power must be given to the pastor to spend, to appoint and remove church officers and to determine other aspects of church operations.
A change in church structures. For example, to give the pastor more power there may be a need to do away with or modify the rules for nominating committees or regular business meetings. To give the local church more power in relation to the denomination, there may even be an attempt to establish the local church as a separate incorporated entity. The local church may adopt its own “bylaws” and vote to do away with all or some of the Church Manual. Tools such as the Church Manual are thought to restrain the pastor’s authority and the local church’s plans.
A change in church ideology. For example, to change the way people engage in church activities there is a need to change the way church members think about God, the pastor and the relative values they have. Is the pastor a “shepherd” or a “leader”? Is God “weak” or “strong”, a lion or a lamb? What is more important “faithfulness” or “fruitfulness” (increased baptisms and financial contributions)? If a church values “faithfulness” but is not growing fast enough, then they need to be re-educated to value “fruitfulness”. If a church is faithfully presenting the message but people are not joining then we need to abandon “culturally irrelevant” methods and use the ones that “work”. There may be changes in church sermons, music, or buildings. Change may also be achieved through training, the use of surveys, changes in titles and terms used in church work (e.g. “pastor”, or “leader”?), reading books by Adventist or non-Adventist authors and silencing existing personnel who do not support the changes.
A change in local church leadership. For example, if existing leaders are not fully supportive of changes that the pastor wants to implement, whether this is because of personality differences or because of biblical convictions, those leaders need to be removed to enable the pastor to “lead”.
A change in financial priorities. For example, it is proposed that the church does not exist to serve the denomination, therefore money for the worldwide work of the church may need to be kept in house to fulfil the “vision” of the local church.
A change in denominational loyalty. For example, in addition to shelving parts of the Church Manual, loyalty to the denomination and to distinctive beliefs is played down so that the local church can feel comfortable with the “vision” it has created for itself. Also, this allows members to be more open minded to non-Adventist teachers who have ideas the pastor wants to implement.
What methodology might be used to bring about these changes?
In order to achieve the above changes the following means may be employed:
Appoint a pastor who is in favour of GHC. GHC is leader-centred and therefore finding a pastor who will carry out the plan is essential. In an Adventist context, if the Conference leadership is behind GHC they may try to replace your pastor if they think your church membership is open to implementing the programme.
Survey the local leaders. Find out who is in favour of change and who isn’t, who will support the pastor with the new direction and who won’t. Encourage them to join in but let them know that if they don’t, their leadership future with the church will need to be reviewed.
Create chaos in a church. This is a major part of the plan. Emotional imbalance and crises are strong fuel for bringing about change. If a church can be frightened by threats of losing their pastor, public opinion surveys, declining membership, financial ruin or just plain lack of unity, they will be prepared to look for a solution. People who have worked together in a church for years will not be prepared to take decisive steps against their “family” members in church leadership unless they have a strong incentive to do so. Creating “emotional imbalance” and uncertainty provides this fuel. In the experience of the writer, introducing suspect forms of worship in the church can help to create this uncertainty and division.
Tell stories. Leaders tell stories to sell the “dream”. The churches that adopt GHC have good stories, the ones who stick with the status quo, have bad stories. Create a picture in the minds of church members that says they must chose GHC or else their church will die.
Bring in experts. “Men in black” carry significant weight, particularly with Adventists. A Conference president, a Union president, pastors generally, can all influence a church heavily. Unless a church is united in its views and biblically literate, the uncertainty created will lead the average church member to seek security with those in authority.
Get commitment. A series of business meetings may be held, where people are asked to vote on the programme and also to change leadership in the church. The church may be asked to pay a fee to the Conference to ensure their commitment to the GHC restructure. Leaders taking office may be asked to sign a pledge of loyalty to the pastor and/or GHC.
What will happen after GHC has been implemented?
Once the church has voted to adopt GHC, it is a matter of keeping the momentum going so that those on board will continue to believe and act in harmony with the plan by undertaking the required restructuring. This is done by giving positive reports, rewarding the “in group” with public praise and involvement in church life. As numbers have become the key measure of success, and having probably created some turmoil to get this far, the “in group” have likely become fairly committed. The pastor will have to hold them together by keeping the “vision” in front of them and reminding them of the consequences of going back. Those in the “out group” are generally excluded from church life and it is hoped that they will leave and find another church which suits them.
Someone promoting the programme, may be tempted to assure you that, even though there are some objectionable features to GHC, they will only be taking the good parts while leaving the nasty bits. However, by now, you will have seen that the plan relies on aggressive and decisive measures being taken to achieve real “change”. Consequently, the plan suffers from the equivalent of what creationists call “irreducible complexity”. To remove any part of the plan allows dissenting voices to re-emerge, the plan could be derailed, and the church may revert to what it knows—namely, Adventism. This is particularly true in regard to the governance structure of the church, as Borden himself says:
...failure to adopt a new structure will eventually stifle the implementation of a new mission and vision.
Note this also, that if you are promised that if the church doesn’t like it, they can go back to a traditional model after a period of time—this is merely another selling tactic to get your church to sign up. A bit like buying on credit. Even if the leader is sincere, it is possible that things will change so radically under GHC that they can never be reversed. Your church may be demolished and relocated, the local community may gain a negative view of the church and relationships may become so soured with former church members that, even if there is deep and sincere repentance, the church’s work may be seriously retarded and members may be lost from the church permanently.
Conclusion
There are essentially two problems with GHC. The first is that it is unbiblical and the second is that it is against the Adventist rules of operation contained in the Church Manual. Both flaws may be effectively exposed in the local church because in an Adventist context, the adoption of the GHC programme is dependent upon churches being convinced that the plan is both sound and advantageous to the church. It cannot be imposed by a Conference.
However, even after adoption, the implementation of GHC is restrained by the binding and detailed procedures contained in the Church Manual. This will set the church at odds with the denomination at large. Like all rules, however, there must be a willingness to enforce them and if GHC is being promoted at a Conference level, or in some cases, at Union level, you will need to seek assistance from the Division or General Conference.
Above all else—pray. “He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might He increaseth strength” (Isaiah 40:29). God has both you and His church under His watching care.
Our next part will offer a more detailed analysis citing material from Dr Borden’s book, Hit the Bullseye, contrasting that with Adventist polity.
Endnotes
Paul D. Borden, Hit the Bullseye—How Denominations Can Aim the Congregation at the Mission Field, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2003), p. 16.
Ibid., p. 126. GCO
© 2009 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.
Tim Matsis is a lawyer who lectures in law, leadership and business at the Southern Institute of Technology in Invercargill, New Zealand. In addition to serving in his local church, he has also being involved as a lay member at Conference and Division level. He is currently doing further study in the field of Theology and Ministry. He is married to Leslea and has a two year old son named Samuel.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 11
The nominating committee chosen to select officers for the 2008-2009 officer cycle met for the first time on Jan. 13, 2008. The committee’s activity had been delayed first by the Borden Report, and later by the personal schedule of its chairman. (It is worth noting that rather than asking the previous officers to continue in their posts until replacements were elected, Pastor DeSilva instead declared that as of Dec. 31, 2007 we had no officers and no board until the nominating committee completed its work.) At this first meeting a new organizational chart was presented to the members, along with lists of the duties of the two new boards.
Pastor DeSilva explained the new chart, read through the duty lists, and explained the requirements for membership in the two boards. We were informed that the pastors’ immediate family members and the paid office staff were not eligible to be elected to any position. We were further informed that no one could be elected to both the Church Ministries Board and the Support and Accountability Board. Also, none of the immediate family of members of either board could be elected to the other board. The stated reason for this was so that the Accountability Board would be able to be impartial in its monitoring and evaluation.
The nominating committee then jumped right in to considering candidates for the various positions. For each position Pastor DeSilva had someone specific in mind. He would speak warmly of his candidate and disparagingly of the others. Everything from personal grooming to newness in the congregation (though that wasn’t a problem if it was his candidate) to having objected to the change in structure was brought up under the guise of candid evaluation in order to discourage votes for alternate candidates.
When the name of a particularly vocal opponent of the structural change was brought up as a potential department head Pastor DeSilva flat out said that in light of recent events he simply could not work with that person. At that point the secretary of the committee spoke up to caution against excluding people just because they happen to disagree with you and thereby losing valuable perspectives. Pastor DeSilva, not content to let the matter rest, jumped back in to the discussion. In his best alter-call oratory style he made an impassioned speech about how there was a difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable. He further declared that there were a number of people who had recently revealed themselves as disagreeable people with whom he simply was unable to work. (Never mind that he had been working with these people beautifully for the better part of eleven years and it wasn’t until they disagreed with him that they became disagreeable.) There was a palpable change in the atmosphere of the room. Moments before when the secretary had been speaking the committee had been relaxed and smiling, nodding their agreement with the secretary’s statement. After Pastor DeSilva’s interjection that good feeling was gone—replaced by an uncertainty and discomfort at his “my way or the highway” attitude.
Next: A Slip of the Lip
Religious
Pastor DeSilva explained the new chart, read through the duty lists, and explained the requirements for membership in the two boards. We were informed that the pastors’ immediate family members and the paid office staff were not eligible to be elected to any position. We were further informed that no one could be elected to both the Church Ministries Board and the Support and Accountability Board. Also, none of the immediate family of members of either board could be elected to the other board. The stated reason for this was so that the Accountability Board would be able to be impartial in its monitoring and evaluation.The nominating committee then jumped right in to considering candidates for the various positions. For each position Pastor DeSilva had someone specific in mind. He would speak warmly of his candidate and disparagingly of the others. Everything from personal grooming to newness in the congregation (though that wasn’t a problem if it was his candidate) to having objected to the change in structure was brought up under the guise of candid evaluation in order to discourage votes for alternate candidates.
When the name of a particularly vocal opponent of the structural change was brought up as a potential department head Pastor DeSilva flat out said that in light of recent events he simply could not work with that person. At that point the secretary of the committee spoke up to caution against excluding people just because they happen to disagree with you and thereby losing valuable perspectives. Pastor DeSilva, not content to let the matter rest, jumped back in to the discussion. In his best alter-call oratory style he made an impassioned speech about how there was a difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable. He further declared that there were a number of people who had recently revealed themselves as disagreeable people with whom he simply was unable to work. (Never mind that he had been working with these people beautifully for the better part of eleven years and it wasn’t until they disagreed with him that they became disagreeable.) There was a palpable change in the atmosphere of the room. Moments before when the secretary had been speaking the committee had been relaxed and smiling, nodding their agreement with the secretary’s statement. After Pastor DeSilva’s interjection that good feeling was gone—replaced by an uncertainty and discomfort at his “my way or the highway” attitude.
Next: A Slip of the Lip
Religious
Friday, April 24, 2009
Appearances: Obedience is Better than "The Healthy Church Initiative"
No doubt you are familiar with the story in the Bible about Saul and the Amalekites (I Samuel 15: 2 - 35). God, through Samuel, told Saul to go to Amalek and kill everyone and everything. Saul was under direct orders from God not to spare any living thing. Seems pretty simple. Definitely straighforward. Nothing to really think about. Step 1: Go to Amalek. Step 2: Find everything that is living. Step 3: Fix it so it's not.
However Saul decided to save Agag, the Amalekite King, and all the "Grade A" cattle, sheep, oxen, etc. Saul, and those that empowered him to make this choice, were (possibly) thinking, "Hey listen, we probably should make a sacrifice to God when we get back, right? Okay fine, why don't we take their best cattle and livestock, and sacrifice that? C'mon, guys! This is genius! We save our stuff, God gets His sacrifice, and in the end everything gets destroyed, just like we were ordered. I mean, come right down to it, does God really care how we get the job done, as long as we do it? It's a "win-win" for everyone...except the Amalekites!" I can only imagine the laughter. Of course, this "reasoning" seemed right in Saul's eyes. So King Saul and the rest of the desert trek crew head back home, to be greeted by the news from Samuel of God's anger and displeasure.
"...Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to harken than the fat of rams."
Fast forward a few thousand years to the founding and organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. According to Ellen G. White, God was the Founder of this Faith, and the early Adventist pioneers came up with a organizational structure, as detailed in the Church Manual, came after long periods of fasting, sleepless nights, and endless prayer. Ellen White cautioned that the development of our organizational structure was guided by the Holy Spirit. She admonished that we tamper with this structure at our own peril. If the Book of Samuel is any indication, it would be reasonable to assume that following His direction in the form of the Church Manual is one of many situations in which God wants our obedience.
But instead, what do we have today in the 21st Century? Seventh-day Adventists, both clergy and laity, who look to Baptist and Pentacostal "mega-churches" and covet their "successes." Not success as defined by searching the Scriptures, or success in sharing in Third Angel's message, or success in telling people what the Bible says about the imminent return of Jesus, but success measured in terms of big buildings, and big congregations, and big money. What a pity that these people seem to forget that if we are doing God's will, the need for anything would be the least of our worries.
To some small degree, I can actually feel for the people pushing the "Healthy Church Initiative." It's been more than a century and a half since the beginning of the Advent movement. We believe that we are God's remnant Church. And yet we look at other faiths, other belief systems both in and out of Christendom, and see huge growth. The Crystal Cathedral. The Saddleback Church. Joel Olsteen. T. D. Jakes.
Some Adventist pastors, and laity, seem to be thinking, "These ministries have huge followings. If we are the Remnant Church, why aren't we growing like they are? Hey! I have an idea. We're smart people, why don't we copy everything the 'Church Growth Movement' people do? We know the basics already. We can either go back to the 1950s and study the original work by Donald McGavran, or we can study modern McGavran incarnations like 'The Purpose Driven Church.' That part would be easy enough since they even host websites like 'Pastors.com' and/or 'Sermons.com.'" Another party to the conversation could have said,"Well if we are going to go that route, then why don't we just hire a church growth consultant? C'mon, it's not like we don't have a budget line item for 'Evangelism.' Let's hire some guy to 're-brand' us. We'll bring in some drums, electric guitars, and get everyone up on their feet screaming and shouting! In fact, if we run the numbers, I'll bet we'll find we can save a ton of cash by not buying hymnals. Who really wants to take the time and think about what hymns are trying say? The concept of hymns as 'prayers in song' is old fashioned, anyway. We can even give it a cool name like the Healthy Church Initiative!" A third member to this conservation could have added," You know guys, there's another way to look at as well, just between us. There's a cost benefit analysis piece the entire church is missing. The percentage of tithes and offerings are down. We have renovations a lot of us would like to see made to the Conference headquarters. Then we have our salaries, and the large number of our employees that are baby boomers that will be retiring soon. Add all that to increased energy costs and other sundries. We need cash. One way to do it is to grow churches. Do the math. Even if we get a portion of new members to pay consistent tithes and offerings, we'll be in a better position financially. Why in some of the so-called 'Mega-Churches,' they manage their tithes and offerings by telling parishioners that God won't bless them, or even answer their prayers unless they give generously to their churches. We not only can do this, we have to do this." Yet another "in-group" member no doubt said, "You know there are going to be a few members, and maybe even a few pastors that are going to push back on this. From what I've read, in order to make these 'Purpose Driven' churches work in terms of reaching out to non-SDAs, we have to 'calm down' preaching about some of our doctrines. We can't talk about Hell, or the 'Time of Trouble' because it will scare people. If we talk about Ellen G. White, they'll thing we're nuts. In fact we can't talk about sin, because we'll be called 'judgmental' or 'haters.' The big problem will be that we will have to change the way our Church is organized and the way decisions are made. Some members are bound to object." To which a senior in-group member probably said something like, "Let them. This is serious business. We have to grow our churches. We can't get the clergy or the laity to commit to actual Bible training so they can go out and teach their neighbors, and we aren't doing in-gathering anymore. From what I've read, there are some pretty effective tactics we can use to shut down any members that don't want to get with the program. We're pastors, after all. Who's running this church anyway? Us or them? Besides, we know better. In the end, we'll increase tithes, we can be more competitive and more main-stream, and we can even get new members. It will be a win-win for everyone."
The problem with this reasoning starts with the question, "Who's running this Church, anyway." The right and only answer is God. Case closed. The Church is the bride of Christ. In the meantime, we are supposed to serve, help, and love another, both inside and outside the Church. We are supposed to both prepare ourselves for His return and and tell others to prepare as well. But that message is lost in the rush to create an "Adventist Clone" of the Purpose Driven Church, or a Saddleback Church, or any one of the several nome-de-plumes for an organization run by a clergy that call the SDA Manual guidelines, and demands the laity "submit to their authority."
Shame. Shame on any SDA clergy anywhere in the world for pushing a system that is contrary to Protestant and SDA core beliefs. Shame on any laity blindly following confeence or pastoral "leadership" that would take us in a direction contrary to God's plan for our Church.. There's wrong, and then there's wrong, and then there's this.
God gave us brains and intelligence so that we might heed the admonition of Isiah 1:18, " Come now, and let us reason together." The key word here is reason. Those who have studied the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, have enough information to know that what Bill Miller and many Potomac Conference pastors are doing is wrong.
But it doesn't stop there. There are books and articles by by Jay Galimore, and Richard O'Ffill, and Thomas Mostert, and others. But more importantly, there is the SDA Church Manual. Think it through. If the people who are pushing this change in Church structure had any value to their claims, why then do they not take their arguments to the General Conference in Open Session? Let them put their ideas forth like honest men, instead of behind closed doors. Certainly, if God supported changes like removing the Church Board in favor of an "Accountability Board" and the "Ministry Board," then the entire church would see the light. Instead look at the chaos and confusion in Minnesota Conference, Rocky Mountain Conference, and Potomac Conference, where the system in play at the Takoma Park Church is used.
If nothing else we know that the God is not the lord of confusion. If so, we know that God is not in the Healthy Church Initiative.
However Saul decided to save Agag, the Amalekite King, and all the "Grade A" cattle, sheep, oxen, etc. Saul, and those that empowered him to make this choice, were (possibly) thinking, "Hey listen, we probably should make a sacrifice to God when we get back, right? Okay fine, why don't we take their best cattle and livestock, and sacrifice that? C'mon, guys! This is genius! We save our stuff, God gets His sacrifice, and in the end everything gets destroyed, just like we were ordered. I mean, come right down to it, does God really care how we get the job done, as long as we do it? It's a "win-win" for everyone...except the Amalekites!" I can only imagine the laughter. Of course, this "reasoning" seemed right in Saul's eyes. So King Saul and the rest of the desert trek crew head back home, to be greeted by the news from Samuel of God's anger and displeasure.
"...Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to harken than the fat of rams."
Fast forward a few thousand years to the founding and organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. According to Ellen G. White, God was the Founder of this Faith, and the early Adventist pioneers came up with a organizational structure, as detailed in the Church Manual, came after long periods of fasting, sleepless nights, and endless prayer. Ellen White cautioned that the development of our organizational structure was guided by the Holy Spirit. She admonished that we tamper with this structure at our own peril. If the Book of Samuel is any indication, it would be reasonable to assume that following His direction in the form of the Church Manual is one of many situations in which God wants our obedience.
But instead, what do we have today in the 21st Century? Seventh-day Adventists, both clergy and laity, who look to Baptist and Pentacostal "mega-churches" and covet their "successes." Not success as defined by searching the Scriptures, or success in sharing in Third Angel's message, or success in telling people what the Bible says about the imminent return of Jesus, but success measured in terms of big buildings, and big congregations, and big money. What a pity that these people seem to forget that if we are doing God's will, the need for anything would be the least of our worries.
To some small degree, I can actually feel for the people pushing the "Healthy Church Initiative." It's been more than a century and a half since the beginning of the Advent movement. We believe that we are God's remnant Church. And yet we look at other faiths, other belief systems both in and out of Christendom, and see huge growth. The Crystal Cathedral. The Saddleback Church. Joel Olsteen. T. D. Jakes.
Some Adventist pastors, and laity, seem to be thinking, "These ministries have huge followings. If we are the Remnant Church, why aren't we growing like they are? Hey! I have an idea. We're smart people, why don't we copy everything the 'Church Growth Movement' people do? We know the basics already. We can either go back to the 1950s and study the original work by Donald McGavran, or we can study modern McGavran incarnations like 'The Purpose Driven Church.' That part would be easy enough since they even host websites like 'Pastors.com' and/or 'Sermons.com.'" Another party to the conversation could have said,"Well if we are going to go that route, then why don't we just hire a church growth consultant? C'mon, it's not like we don't have a budget line item for 'Evangelism.' Let's hire some guy to 're-brand' us. We'll bring in some drums, electric guitars, and get everyone up on their feet screaming and shouting! In fact, if we run the numbers, I'll bet we'll find we can save a ton of cash by not buying hymnals. Who really wants to take the time and think about what hymns are trying say? The concept of hymns as 'prayers in song' is old fashioned, anyway. We can even give it a cool name like the Healthy Church Initiative!" A third member to this conservation could have added," You know guys, there's another way to look at as well, just between us. There's a cost benefit analysis piece the entire church is missing. The percentage of tithes and offerings are down. We have renovations a lot of us would like to see made to the Conference headquarters. Then we have our salaries, and the large number of our employees that are baby boomers that will be retiring soon. Add all that to increased energy costs and other sundries. We need cash. One way to do it is to grow churches. Do the math. Even if we get a portion of new members to pay consistent tithes and offerings, we'll be in a better position financially. Why in some of the so-called 'Mega-Churches,' they manage their tithes and offerings by telling parishioners that God won't bless them, or even answer their prayers unless they give generously to their churches. We not only can do this, we have to do this." Yet another "in-group" member no doubt said, "You know there are going to be a few members, and maybe even a few pastors that are going to push back on this. From what I've read, in order to make these 'Purpose Driven' churches work in terms of reaching out to non-SDAs, we have to 'calm down' preaching about some of our doctrines. We can't talk about Hell, or the 'Time of Trouble' because it will scare people. If we talk about Ellen G. White, they'll thing we're nuts. In fact we can't talk about sin, because we'll be called 'judgmental' or 'haters.' The big problem will be that we will have to change the way our Church is organized and the way decisions are made. Some members are bound to object." To which a senior in-group member probably said something like, "Let them. This is serious business. We have to grow our churches. We can't get the clergy or the laity to commit to actual Bible training so they can go out and teach their neighbors, and we aren't doing in-gathering anymore. From what I've read, there are some pretty effective tactics we can use to shut down any members that don't want to get with the program. We're pastors, after all. Who's running this church anyway? Us or them? Besides, we know better. In the end, we'll increase tithes, we can be more competitive and more main-stream, and we can even get new members. It will be a win-win for everyone."
The problem with this reasoning starts with the question, "Who's running this Church, anyway." The right and only answer is God. Case closed. The Church is the bride of Christ. In the meantime, we are supposed to serve, help, and love another, both inside and outside the Church. We are supposed to both prepare ourselves for His return and and tell others to prepare as well. But that message is lost in the rush to create an "Adventist Clone" of the Purpose Driven Church, or a Saddleback Church, or any one of the several nome-de-plumes for an organization run by a clergy that call the SDA Manual guidelines, and demands the laity "submit to their authority."
Shame. Shame on any SDA clergy anywhere in the world for pushing a system that is contrary to Protestant and SDA core beliefs. Shame on any laity blindly following confeence or pastoral "leadership" that would take us in a direction contrary to God's plan for our Church.. There's wrong, and then there's wrong, and then there's this.
God gave us brains and intelligence so that we might heed the admonition of Isiah 1:18, " Come now, and let us reason together." The key word here is reason. Those who have studied the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, have enough information to know that what Bill Miller and many Potomac Conference pastors are doing is wrong.
But it doesn't stop there. There are books and articles by by Jay Galimore, and Richard O'Ffill, and Thomas Mostert, and others. But more importantly, there is the SDA Church Manual. Think it through. If the people who are pushing this change in Church structure had any value to their claims, why then do they not take their arguments to the General Conference in Open Session? Let them put their ideas forth like honest men, instead of behind closed doors. Certainly, if God supported changes like removing the Church Board in favor of an "Accountability Board" and the "Ministry Board," then the entire church would see the light. Instead look at the chaos and confusion in Minnesota Conference, Rocky Mountain Conference, and Potomac Conference, where the system in play at the Takoma Park Church is used.
If nothing else we know that the God is not the lord of confusion. If so, we know that God is not in the Healthy Church Initiative.
What is unity? (conclusion)
In thinking about what I wrote last week I don't think I made my point as well as I could have. I offer this conclusion to bring my remarks into sharper focus.
There are proper official forums in which to address church disputes. We tried to use them and were driven out. When we tried to use unofficial forums that would not "interfere with church business" we were told we were wrong for not using the official forums. The pastors thereby created a "catch 22" situation in which the only "correct" thing to do would be to shut up and let them do whatever they wanted.
Aside from being in direct opposition to the democratic rights of open, sincere dialogue embraced by the SDA Church worldwide, this was wrong because it failed to resolve the underlying issue. Even if the Group were to dutifully shut up and go along with the pastoral program we would know in our hearts that what we were doing was wrong and the whole unresolved matter would fester within the congregation. This would do far more to disrupt the unity of the congregation in the long run than simply allowing the matter to be addressed fairly in the beginning. This process has been so long and hurt so many people not because of any malicious act on our part but because the powers that be in the SDA Church refuse to deal with the situation. In short, what we have is an open wound that has become infected because the medical personnel prefer to pretend it doesn't exist rather than treat it. The blame for this disunity-causing negligence lies squarely with the Takoma Park pastors and the Potomac Conference.
Religious
There are proper official forums in which to address church disputes. We tried to use them and were driven out. When we tried to use unofficial forums that would not "interfere with church business" we were told we were wrong for not using the official forums. The pastors thereby created a "catch 22" situation in which the only "correct" thing to do would be to shut up and let them do whatever they wanted.
Aside from being in direct opposition to the democratic rights of open, sincere dialogue embraced by the SDA Church worldwide, this was wrong because it failed to resolve the underlying issue. Even if the Group were to dutifully shut up and go along with the pastoral program we would know in our hearts that what we were doing was wrong and the whole unresolved matter would fester within the congregation. This would do far more to disrupt the unity of the congregation in the long run than simply allowing the matter to be addressed fairly in the beginning. This process has been so long and hurt so many people not because of any malicious act on our part but because the powers that be in the SDA Church refuse to deal with the situation. In short, what we have is an open wound that has become infected because the medical personnel prefer to pretend it doesn't exist rather than treat it. The blame for this disunity-causing negligence lies squarely with the Takoma Park pastors and the Potomac Conference.
Religious
Saturday, April 18, 2009
What is unity?
One of the recurring accusations made by the pastoral staff as this situation has progressed has been that we are causing disunity. It's an issue that deserves analysis. What is disunity? For that matter, what is unity?
I believe unity can best be defined by what it is not. Unity is not uniformity. Unity is not refusing to question authority. Unity is not sweeping problems under the rug to preserve "appearances." Unity is having a shared purpose. A purpose so important that you are willing to labor together as long as necessary to accomplish that purpose. Disunity, then, is either refusing to labor toward the shared purpose or causing a gratuitous disruption in that labor. Disunity is not sincerely disagreeing with each other about how best to accomplish that purpose.
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" Phil. 2:12.
“We cannot, we must not, place blind confidence in any man, however high his profession of faith or his position in the church. We must not follow his guidance, unless the Word of God sustains him. The Lord would have His people individually distinguish between sin and righteousness, between the precious and the vile” (Signs of the Times, Aug. 17, 1882).
It is not only our right but our duty to explore and determine for ourselves the veracity of the direction our leaders what us to go. If that exploration leads us to believe that that direction is faulty it is also our duty to stand up and say so.
When this situation began the Group brought up its concerns in the official, sanctioned forums for discussion of church issues (board meetings, business meetings, elders' meetings, etc.). Much of the membership was open to hearing what we had to say and openly discussing it, but the pastors were not, so they took to accusing us of impeding the work of the church and causing disunity. As in all congregations, there are many at Takoma Park who are willing to take pastoral statements at face value without investigation, and these people accepted the pastoral accusation. These days any time one of us stands up to speak in an official meeting we are immediately greeted with eye-rolling and sighs of exasperation.
When it became clear that we weren't welcome to have open discussions in official forums we turned to unofficial ones. We spoke to our fellow members by ones and twos as chance meetings permitted and met in each others' homes to consider the matter. This so irritated Pastor DeSilva that he actually got up in church during the first service one Sabbath and announced that no one was allowed to have meetings unless they were approved in advance by either a pastor or the head elder. At the second service that same Sabbath he had the head elder make the same announcement.
In the course of later events which will be described in detail in their proper order in The Epic, we sent a couple of petition-style letters with multiple signatures. Pastor DeSilva actually had the nerve to interpret the increased number of signatures from the first letter to the second as "proof" that we were bothering people and disrupting the church!
Is it really us who have caused the "disunity," or is it our pastors? Everything we have done has been because we feel convicted that our congregation has taken a wrong turn and needs to be warned of the error. If our pastors had been more concerned about open, honest discussion and resolution of the matter than about quelling dissention we wouldn't be in this situation now.
Christian unity isn't never disagreeing with each other or church leadership. Even within the early church (which is often pointed to as the model of Christian unity) there were issues and disagreements. What made them unified was their willingness to address the matters head-on and find resolutions so that those issues didn't distract from the common purpose. We have repeatedly reached out to our pastors achieve precisely that sort of discussion and resolution and have been met with nothing but hostility. If there is disunity at Takoma Park it is not of our causing.
Religious
I believe unity can best be defined by what it is not. Unity is not uniformity. Unity is not refusing to question authority. Unity is not sweeping problems under the rug to preserve "appearances." Unity is having a shared purpose. A purpose so important that you are willing to labor together as long as necessary to accomplish that purpose. Disunity, then, is either refusing to labor toward the shared purpose or causing a gratuitous disruption in that labor. Disunity is not sincerely disagreeing with each other about how best to accomplish that purpose.
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" Phil. 2:12.
“We cannot, we must not, place blind confidence in any man, however high his profession of faith or his position in the church. We must not follow his guidance, unless the Word of God sustains him. The Lord would have His people individually distinguish between sin and righteousness, between the precious and the vile” (Signs of the Times, Aug. 17, 1882).
It is not only our right but our duty to explore and determine for ourselves the veracity of the direction our leaders what us to go. If that exploration leads us to believe that that direction is faulty it is also our duty to stand up and say so.
When this situation began the Group brought up its concerns in the official, sanctioned forums for discussion of church issues (board meetings, business meetings, elders' meetings, etc.). Much of the membership was open to hearing what we had to say and openly discussing it, but the pastors were not, so they took to accusing us of impeding the work of the church and causing disunity. As in all congregations, there are many at Takoma Park who are willing to take pastoral statements at face value without investigation, and these people accepted the pastoral accusation. These days any time one of us stands up to speak in an official meeting we are immediately greeted with eye-rolling and sighs of exasperation.
When it became clear that we weren't welcome to have open discussions in official forums we turned to unofficial ones. We spoke to our fellow members by ones and twos as chance meetings permitted and met in each others' homes to consider the matter. This so irritated Pastor DeSilva that he actually got up in church during the first service one Sabbath and announced that no one was allowed to have meetings unless they were approved in advance by either a pastor or the head elder. At the second service that same Sabbath he had the head elder make the same announcement.
In the course of later events which will be described in detail in their proper order in The Epic, we sent a couple of petition-style letters with multiple signatures. Pastor DeSilva actually had the nerve to interpret the increased number of signatures from the first letter to the second as "proof" that we were bothering people and disrupting the church!
Is it really us who have caused the "disunity," or is it our pastors? Everything we have done has been because we feel convicted that our congregation has taken a wrong turn and needs to be warned of the error. If our pastors had been more concerned about open, honest discussion and resolution of the matter than about quelling dissention we wouldn't be in this situation now.
Christian unity isn't never disagreeing with each other or church leadership. Even within the early church (which is often pointed to as the model of Christian unity) there were issues and disagreements. What made them unified was their willingness to address the matters head-on and find resolutions so that those issues didn't distract from the common purpose. We have repeatedly reached out to our pastors achieve precisely that sort of discussion and resolution and have been met with nothing but hostility. If there is disunity at Takoma Park it is not of our causing.
Religious
Friday, April 10, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 10
The next forum at which we attempted to formally address our concerns was an Elders’ Meeting which was held on Dec. 30, 2007. At that meeting the matter was thoroughly discussed, and an open letter was prepared by the elders which stated five points of concern regarding the action taken to change the governance structure of our congregation and made two recommendations for addressing the matter. The letter was signed by the then head elder.
The Jan. 6 meeting began with Pastor DeSilva insisting that his wife, who was not an elder, be allowed to be present, even though he had made a big deal about no one but elders being allowed in the room. He further stated that if any elder asked Mrs. DeSilva to leave that he also would walk out. No elder made such a request. Pastor DeSilva then assumed control of the meeting and began to defend the new structure, drawing a chart of the new system on a white board in the room as he “explained” it. His drawing on the white board was faithfully copied down by one of the elders present, and is concluded below.
The explanation was followed by intense debate on the legitimacy of the new structure, in which Mrs. DeSilva took part. Several of the elders who had expressed concerns at the previous meeting were unable to attend the second one, which tipped the balance of voices in the pastor’s favor. Finally, one of the fence-sitting elders gave a “can’t we all just get along?” speech, which was followed by a vote for “unity.” The letter prepared the previous week was completely ignored, and Pastor DeSilva got up before the congregation the following Sabbath to crow that the elders had “unified” behind the new structure.
Next: Long-delayed Business
The catch in this progress was that Pastor DeSilva was not present at that meeting, and since the pastor ranks above the board of elders (though he is to consult and cooperate with them), no action could be taken on the recommendations made by the elders until he had been brought on board. To this end a second Elders’ Meeting was scheduled for the next week, Jan. 6, in order to discuss the matter with Pastor DeSilva. That meeting had a far different character from the first.
The Jan. 6 meeting began with Pastor DeSilva insisting that his wife, who was not an elder, be allowed to be present, even though he had made a big deal about no one but elders being allowed in the room. He further stated that if any elder asked Mrs. DeSilva to leave that he also would walk out. No elder made such a request. Pastor DeSilva then assumed control of the meeting and began to defend the new structure, drawing a chart of the new system on a white board in the room as he “explained” it. His drawing on the white board was faithfully copied down by one of the elders present, and is concluded below.
The explanation was followed by intense debate on the legitimacy of the new structure, in which Mrs. DeSilva took part. Several of the elders who had expressed concerns at the previous meeting were unable to attend the second one, which tipped the balance of voices in the pastor’s favor. Finally, one of the fence-sitting elders gave a “can’t we all just get along?” speech, which was followed by a vote for “unity.” The letter prepared the previous week was completely ignored, and Pastor DeSilva got up before the congregation the following Sabbath to crow that the elders had “unified” behind the new structure.
Next: Long-delayed Business
Religious
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Epic, Pt. 9
Shortly after the unproductive meeting with Elders Miller and Pichette the Group gathered to discuss what had happened and what should be done next. An elder who had followed up the meeting with a phone call to Elder Weigley gave a report on the substance of that conversation. After being told what had happened in the meeting with Elder Miller, Elder Weigley pointed out several issues regarding the vote for the new structure which could be used as a basis for appeal of the matter. (These appeal points, along with others, have already been outlined in The Epic, Pt.4.)
This advice brought the discussion to a crucial question: What exactly was our goal? To simply have the specific vote overturned based on technicalities would leave the door open to a revote. It was a question we would revisit frequently in the coming months as the problem evolved, but we established our foundational answer that night. We must not only reverse the vote in favor of the Borden Report, but also establish somehow that the only acceptable means of governing our congregation was by strict adherence to the method outlined in the Church Manual.
Next: False Hope
Religious
This advice brought the discussion to a crucial question: What exactly was our goal? To simply have the specific vote overturned based on technicalities would leave the door open to a revote. It was a question we would revisit frequently in the coming months as the problem evolved, but we established our foundational answer that night. We must not only reverse the vote in favor of the Borden Report, but also establish somehow that the only acceptable means of governing our congregation was by strict adherence to the method outlined in the Church Manual.
Next: False Hope
Religious
The Epic, Pt 8
After lengthy discussions among those bothered by the vote in favor of the Paul Borden Report (hereinafter “the Group”) it was decided that a fact-finding meeting was needed with the Potomac Conference. One of the elders in the Group called down to the Conference to request a meeting with the Conference president, Elder Miller. Elder Miller agreed to the meeting on the stipulation that there be no more than eight members of the congregation present. Present with Elder Miller would be Elder Pichette. The meeting was held on December 12, 2007.
No specific list of attendees was prepared by the Group in advance, because it was unclear exactly who would be able to make it to the meeting. As it happened, eight people showed up at the appointed time and place and the meeting began. Not long into the meeting, however, a ninth Group member arrived. Rather than gracefully accepting the presence of another concerned constituent Elder Miller placed himself in the doorway to physically block the entrance of the latecomer and announced, “We have one too many people here.” In order to resolve the situation one of the eight people already in the room volunteered to leave.
The following questions were asked of the Potomac Conference officials and provided to them in writing:
1. Who initiated the directive that the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church’s organizational structure be changed—the Potomac Conference or the Senior Pastor?
2. Were guidelines (as outlined in the Church Manual) followed regarding changing the local Church’s organizational structure?
3. Did the Union, North American Division, and General Conference agree to the new structure, although it is not in accordance with the Church Manual?
4. If a staff-led structure is good for Takoma Park Church, then why not begin with a staff-led conference structure, with a president who appoints the executive committee?
Also asked was whether it was really necessary to change the structure of the church in order to do outreach.
The Group further brought up a number of objections to the new system, as well as the fact that the circumstances of the vote to approve the Paul Borden Report were unfair and inappropriate.
The objections, also provided in writing, were as follows:
1. A staff-led structure is hierarchical, which divorces itself from the Church Manual and is contrary to the ethics, ecclesiology, and polity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
2. A staff-led structure does not enhance equality, shared authority, responsibility, and accountability, but rather excludes 99.9% of the membership.
3. A staff-led structure can encourage and/or lead to abuse of power.
4. A staff-led structure can lead to authoritarianism, with a few hand-picked people making decisions and dictating to the membership. Spirit of Prophesy quotation: “Even if a ruler were naturally merciful and benevolent, unlimited power over his fellow men would tend to make him a despot. Such power God alone is able to use with justice and wisdom.” Signs of the Times, July 13, 1882.
Elders Miller and Pichette initially made no reply to any of the questions or objections and were preparing to leave to go to another engagement when they were pressed to at least answer who had suggested Paul Borden. Elder Miller finally stated that Pastor DeSilva had come to him to ask for an assessment of Takoma Park and that he [Elder Miller] had recommended Paul Borden.
When one of the Group members observed that the recent events were going to be bad for the church Elder Miller responded, “Well, Sister, I’ve seen where churches have had to go down to 20 before they got turned around.” On that rather dismaying note the meeting ended. The Group was absolutely dumbfounded that a conference official would express such reckless disregard for the souls of those who didn’t see eye to eye with him. It was clear to us then that no help could be expected from the Potomac Conference.
Next: Dare to Have a Purpose Firm
Religious
No specific list of attendees was prepared by the Group in advance, because it was unclear exactly who would be able to make it to the meeting. As it happened, eight people showed up at the appointed time and place and the meeting began. Not long into the meeting, however, a ninth Group member arrived. Rather than gracefully accepting the presence of another concerned constituent Elder Miller placed himself in the doorway to physically block the entrance of the latecomer and announced, “We have one too many people here.” In order to resolve the situation one of the eight people already in the room volunteered to leave.
The following questions were asked of the Potomac Conference officials and provided to them in writing:
1. Who initiated the directive that the Takoma Park Seventh-day Adventist Church’s organizational structure be changed—the Potomac Conference or the Senior Pastor?
2. Were guidelines (as outlined in the Church Manual) followed regarding changing the local Church’s organizational structure?
3. Did the Union, North American Division, and General Conference agree to the new structure, although it is not in accordance with the Church Manual?
4. If a staff-led structure is good for Takoma Park Church, then why not begin with a staff-led conference structure, with a president who appoints the executive committee?
Also asked was whether it was really necessary to change the structure of the church in order to do outreach.
The Group further brought up a number of objections to the new system, as well as the fact that the circumstances of the vote to approve the Paul Borden Report were unfair and inappropriate.
The objections, also provided in writing, were as follows:
1. A staff-led structure is hierarchical, which divorces itself from the Church Manual and is contrary to the ethics, ecclesiology, and polity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
2. A staff-led structure does not enhance equality, shared authority, responsibility, and accountability, but rather excludes 99.9% of the membership.
3. A staff-led structure can encourage and/or lead to abuse of power.
4. A staff-led structure can lead to authoritarianism, with a few hand-picked people making decisions and dictating to the membership. Spirit of Prophesy quotation: “Even if a ruler were naturally merciful and benevolent, unlimited power over his fellow men would tend to make him a despot. Such power God alone is able to use with justice and wisdom.” Signs of the Times, July 13, 1882.
Elders Miller and Pichette initially made no reply to any of the questions or objections and were preparing to leave to go to another engagement when they were pressed to at least answer who had suggested Paul Borden. Elder Miller finally stated that Pastor DeSilva had come to him to ask for an assessment of Takoma Park and that he [Elder Miller] had recommended Paul Borden.
When one of the Group members observed that the recent events were going to be bad for the church Elder Miller responded, “Well, Sister, I’ve seen where churches have had to go down to 20 before they got turned around.” On that rather dismaying note the meeting ended. The Group was absolutely dumbfounded that a conference official would express such reckless disregard for the souls of those who didn’t see eye to eye with him. It was clear to us then that no help could be expected from the Potomac Conference.
Next: Dare to Have a Purpose Firm
Religious
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)