To Keep It Holy

Is it acceptable to make church business decisions on Sabbath? As we described in the Epic, Pt. 47, Pastor DeSilva made the argument that it was acceptable to hold the vote on the vision statement on Sabbath during the worship service because it was no different than voting on a nominating committee report. This assertion merits some exploration, as does his companion argument that votes on Sabbath are better because there are more people to participate in the vote.

First we will look at the process for electing church officers and the portions of this business which are conducted on Sabbath. Election business is conducted differently from any other local business in the SDA church because it is business about people. As is seen regularly in contests for public office, the electoral process has the potential to become ugly very quickly. The Adventist system seeks to avoid this ugliness by taking the “competitive element” out of the process. This is done by delegating the primary decision making power of the business meeting to a small group known as the nominating committee.

The process begins with the creation of a committee usually known as the “large committee.” This group is formed either by taking verbal nominations from the floor on a Sabbath morning or including nomination blanks in the church’s bulletin on which each member can write several names. Under the latter method the forms are then collected and the results tabulated at a later time. This is the method used most frequently in North America. Once the large committee is formed its job is to nominate the nominating committee. They prepare a list of names which is then voted up or down in its entirety by the congregation. Unless there is some significant reason why a proposed name is unfit to serve the list is approved. Once the nominating committee is established it begins the work of nominating officers for the various positions in the church.

“With earnest prayer for guidance the committee should begin its work of preparing to submit to the church a list of names of officers and assistants comprised of members in regular standing on the roll of the church making the appointments. These will be placed in nomination for office and presented to the church at a Sabbath service or at a specially called business meeting of the church” (Church Manual, p.155).

This presentation of the list of proposed officers takes place over two Sabbaths. On the first Sabbath the list is presented, usually in written form. On the second Sabbath the list is voted up or down in its entirety. The delay of a week gives members an opportunity to make a discreet objection to the nominating committee if they believe that any of the proposed officers are unfit to serve. In such a case the nominating committee hears the objection, considers the evidence, and decides whether to make a substitution on the list. All of the nominating committee’s deliberations are considered confidential.

Membership transfers are also transacted with a first and second reading on separate Sabbaths in order to allow discreet objections, but no other type of business is conducted in this manner. Everything else is decided directly by the congregation in business meeting. In a properly conducted business meeting any member in regular standing (as opposed to being under discipline) may make a motion which, if seconded, is then discussed and voted on. Any motion not acted upon by either a vote or being tabled during the meeting in which it is made dies at the end of that meeting.

There are several significant differences between the process for choosing church officers and the way all other business decisions of the congregation are handled. First, the existence and function of the nominating committee constitute a delegating of the direct control over business decisions which is usually exercised by the business meeting. Second, with this delegated power the nominating committee is permitted to use its own discretion on whether or not to act on member input/objections which under the normal business meeting model would take the form of discussion and/or motions which could not be ignored. Finally, nominating committee reports are the only form of business besides membership transfers which the Church Manual specifically permits on Sabbath, and even then it allows the congregation to decide to conduct this business outside of the Sabbath hours.

“The report of this committee may be presented at the Sabbath service or at a specially called business meeting of the church” (Church Manual, p.157).

Now we get to Pastor DeSilva’s contention. His line of logic was that just as the nominating committee does its work outside of the Sabbath hours and brings the results to the church to be voted on on Sabbath, so the congregation was doing its work on the vision statement outside of the Sabbath and bringing the matter to a vote on Sabbath, and that separating the discussion from the vote made the vote acceptable Sabbath behavior. This logic breaks down instantly when one considers that the vision statement was three times discussed on Sabbath afternoons, thereby bringing the “work” into the Sabbath hours, but there are other more serious problems with this logic. While it fails to adhere to the nominating committee process in the way that Pastor DeSilva suggested, it is actually too close to the nominating committee process in other ways. The first of these is that it was created by a small group (of one), not by the congregation. The second is that the discussion meetings had no power. They were very clearly laid out as discussion only. Members of the congregation could talk until they were blue in the face and not make one wit of difference in the content of the vision statement because no motions, amendments, or votes were permitted in these meetings. Just as in the nominating process, the members’ role was purely observational—all actual decisions/changes occurred at the discretion of the small group (which in this case was the senior pastor).

And why is all of this a problem? There are two reasons. First, the church is supposed to operate on the basis of representative governance in which initiative and final power rests with the congregation in business meeting. (For an explanation of why the church is run this way, see the earlier post, “The Lord’s Anointed, Pt. 2.”) The nominating committee process is spelled out as an exception to this policy for specific reasons and a limited purpose. It is not meant to be taken as a pattern for other types of business.

Second, there is the concern that conducting business on the Sabbath—even if it is church business—violates God’s directive to keep the Sabbath holy. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has never created a rulebook on what is or is not acceptable on the Sabbath, preferring instead to leave such decisions to each individual’s conscience. The worldwide church does, however, place great emphasis on the need to take great care in preserving the holiness of the day. The following statement is made by the Church Manual in reference to the practice of distributing literature to the congregation on Sabbath, “Methods that are objectionable and that would tend to divert the attention of the congregation from true worship and reverence should be avoided on the Sabbath” (p.89). Even in a matter as innocuous as literature distribution, then, there is need for caution that the sanctity of the Sabbath and the worship experience not be violated! How much more cautious should we be about out-and-out business and voting on the Sabbath? Let’s refer back to the nominating committee process once more. As we have already quoted, even in that process where the Manual specifically permits the business to take place on Sabbath there is also provision for the business to take place outside of Sabbath hours if the congregation finds that to be preferable.

The principle behind this is to respect the sensitivities some members may have in this regard and not offend by requiring that they do something they find objectionable in order to participate in the decisions of the church. This principle is the same one Paul described in 1 Corinthians 8:9-12 when he was giving counsel on whether or not to eat meat which had been offered to idols, “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak… When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.” So in the matter of conducting business on Sabbath, even if the pastor genuinely believed that such action did not constitute a violation of the Sabbath’s holiness he should have respected the concerns of those who believed that it did and moved the vote to some other day of the week. Yet he would not, choosing instead to “wound their weak conscience.”

Finally, we come to the reason why Pastor DeSilva refused to move the vote. His argument was that votes on Sabbath are better because there are more people to participate in the vote. This sounds good on the surface, but it deserves some closer scrutiny. Yes, there are more members present during Sabbath morning services than at business meetings on other days of the week. Why is that? Too many other commitments? Lack of interest? Lack of faith in the process? Whatever the reasons the result is the same: a less-educated voting body. When it came to the discussions on the vision statement Pastor DeSilva claimed that many people saw no need to come because they agreed with it. So? The point of holding discussions is to exchange viewpoints. Someone who agreed with it might change their mind after hearing the objections of someone else just as someone who disagreed might come to support it upon hearing the perspective of someone who did. Of course, it is also possible that a position held before the meeting would only be strengthened for hearing the discussion, but even if that were true it would be a stronger, better-rounded opinion for having participated. The point is that participation in the “preliminaries” of the process makes better voters. So Pastor DeSilva’s argument boils down to one of quantity over quality. Yes, more people are “involved” if votes are held on Sabbath morning rather than at any other time, but is that involvement really beneficial to the final decision if the additional individuals haven’t taken the time to thoroughly educate themselves on the subject at hand?

The bottom line is that Pastor DeSilva held the vote on the vision statement on Sabbath because he wanted to, not because of procedural precedent indicating that it was the better thing to do.