In His Own Eyes

The statement below showed up in the comments recently and expresses a common misconception about the Church Manual that we keep running into, so we have decided to set the record straight.

“Thank you for sharing the documents, as I have wanted to see them for some time in regard to the structure of the proposed leadership team vs. one the church manual recommends. They seem to align quite well and I see no great variance that would not allow a church to function within the guidelines of the manual.

“As the church manual allows local churches to adjust slightly by need of culture, size or other variables, the local church does have some latitude in governing themselves. It is wise to adhere as closely to the manual as possible, as there is "safety" in doing so. However, sometimes it is necessary to streamline things so they accomplish more in a local church. No doubt this is what Pastor DeSilva and others have in mind as they prayerfully seek to move Takoma Park forward.”
There are actually two misconceptions about the Church Manual in this statement. The first is that the Manual constitutes only recommendations and guidelines. The second is that the Manual permits local churches to deviate from its specifications. Let’s look at what the Church Manual itself says on these subjects.

“The content of this Church Manual, as it is presented in chapters and sections within chapters, is divided into two types of material. The main content of each chapter is of worldwide value and applicable to every church. Recognizing the need for some variations, additional material which is explanatory in nature appears as Notes at the end of some chapters and is given as guidance” (Church Manual, p.xxi).

If the entire Manual was merely guidance there would be no need to specify that the Notes were merely guidance, as such a statement would be redundant. In other words, some of it is guidance and some of it is mandatory. The two types of information are clearly separated, with the sections that are merely guidance being definitively labeled as “Notes.” The sections which pertain to governance and the church board are part of the content which is mandatory.

“…local conditions in different parts of the world sometimes call for special actions. Accordingly, the 1948 Autumn Council …voted:

“‘That each division, including the North American Division of the world field, prepare a ‘Supplement’ to the new Church Manual not in any way modifying it but containing such additional matter as is applicable to the conditions and circumstances prevailing in the division; the manuscripts for these Supplements to be submitted to the General Conference Committee for endorsement before being printed.’—Autumn Council Actions, 1948, p.19” (Church Manual, p.xxi, emphasis supplied).

The Manual does provide for adaptation to local conditions. However, that provision is not an all-access pass for the local church to do whatever it wants to. There are three conditions to this provision which the proponents of the “all-access” theory ignore. First, this provision is granted only to the divisions, not to the local church, the conference, or even the union. Second, this adaptation cannot in any way modify the Manual’s content, only add to it. Third, these adaptations must be approved by the General Conference Committee.

The Church Manual does provide the following latitude to the local church in arranging its own governance:

“Committees of the Board—The church board should permit no other business to interfere with planning for evangelism. Should other business be too time-consuming, the board may appoint committees to care for specific areas of church business, such as finance or church building projects. Such committees will then make recommendations to the church board” (Church Manual, p.92).

The one and only thing the local church is permitted to do by way of customizing its governance is to create subcommittees of the church board. That is not what happened at Takoma Park. Our situation is that the proper church board has been splintered. Neither of the two new “boards” fits the definition of a proper church board. Even if the two were put together there would still be holes. It is as if someone took a bicycle, disassembled it into its component parts, separated the parts into three piles, pointed to one of the piles, and said, “See, it’s a bicycle!” There might indeed be a bicycle seat or chain or gear in the pile, but that doesn’t make the pile a bicycle. It is only when all the parts are gathered together and assembled into working order that you may truly say that you have a bicycle (or a church board).

If a local church decides to ignore the mandatory nature of the Church Manual’s statements on governance and go its own way it is taking on the attitude of the Israelites in Judges 17:1-6, “And there was a man of mount Ephraim, whose name was Micah. ...and his mother took two hundred shekels of silver, and gave them to the founder, who made thereof a graven image and a molten image: and they were in the house of Micah. And the man Micah had an house of gods, and made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest. In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”