Australian Leader Questions Functions of GC
In a July 24, 2015, email sent to readers of the Australian-based Seventh-day Adventist Record, Director of Communications James Standish, offers some surprisingly candid thoughts about the value and function of the present General Conference system.
He admits that his candor may be a career risk to himself, so obviously his concerns are of a magnitude worth the personal risk. “I love our Church. I love it enough to take the career risk to talk openly about my concerns,” he writes. His editorial notes specific concerns.
One is the financial cost of holding a General Conference. Using Australian Dollars he quotes estimates of $A45 million (USD 33 million) for the official organization and the supporting ministries represented. He asks if these donated funds are best spent every five years “competing…for positions and donor money,” or if instead this amount might be used for a similarly funded 60,000 Adventists converging “on Paris, Lagos, Shanghai or Melbourne” for a city evangelistic effort every five years. Or feeding 25,000 starving children every day for the next five years?
But more than the cost of holding a General Conference are concerns about its agenda and its composition. Firstly, he notes that the conference stated we do not know how many Adventists there are in the world, and that our 18.5 million estimate is likely an overestimate. But even if there are that many Adventists in this world, the present system of delegates is clearly unfair and not representational of Adventism.
Referring to church membership statistics showing that over 50% of our members are female, Standish notes, “there is something troubling about a room of almost 2600 delegates debating the role of women in the Church, where only 17% of the delegates are women.”
Also, the present program of many delegates being “ex-officio” limiting choices to ordained ministers who now by definition are male, makes the future changes for a representative General Conference almost impossible. “This produces a self-confirming circularity that is both unwise and unfair.”
His main concern, however, were the votes that imposed restrictions on belief by one group in the church over another group in the church. “We believe God speaks to all. But we voted to shut down the conscience of others. We have no creed but the Bible. But we spent an inordinate amount of time debating jots and tittles in Fundamental Beliefs. As a movement, we are drifting very dangerously into the hierarchicalism, formalism and dogmatism that our pioneers explicitly rejected.”
For solutions, he has suggestions, but was not able to offer a mechanism for implementing those suggestions. “We desperately need a far more transparent, democratic process for selecting delegates.”
Do we have Adventist management experts, organizational counselors, legal minds, political advisors to lay out a plan for the Adventist church to retool the mechanisms to reach these goals? Pastor Standish’s original article can be read here: James Standish “Thoughts” July 24, 2015.
Mr. Standish,
Your concern’s to me seem to be brought up due to the fact the vote did not go in your favor. Fifty nine percent of the delegates stood for the Bible and that is God’s will.
Dennis Foxworth
Dennis,
Here’s my thinking. I’m still looking for a single illustration of where a vote brought people together, rather than divide them in the church or in the larger society. Lend a hand if you like.
Voting sure seems like an act of seeking political cover, to me.
The great thing about the Acts 15 model, is that there was no vote, and thus no temptation to coerce rather than lead.
Leadership is all about finding the unifying solution. Leadership is about aggregating people. In the church, Leadership is about looking for and following the Holy Spirit by finding and following the Holy Spirit when an ecclesiastical advancement is still a modest minority phenomena.
Let’s face it, once anything becomes the majority phenomena on its own, leadership is almost always replaced on the basis of its proven failure.
I have a distaste for votes, as you can see. I welcome your adding balance to my admittedly distorted sense of ecclesiastical voting.
To push people out and limit the number of workers can hardly been seen as the will of God, unless one is reading the Bible upside down!
Maybe Dennis, the observation that church membership, or those who should be in membership, is overstated as Standish as put forth. We would have to exclude around 41 percent of the current members as they apparently do not stand for the Bible. That sounds like a very apostate church to me.
Perhaps something new needs to be added to the baptismal vows. Along the lines of “if a demonstrate that I do not believe the Bible, by showing support for women to be ordained as ministers, I will resign as a member”.
How odd that all of our university scholars have failed to find the Bible passages that require male only ordination.
I am not sure about the vote going against him theory, but I know that seeing people, from all over the world, who worship as you worship, study the same lesson each week, all this reemphasizes several things. 1) We are a world church, 2) We are not alone. Our message really is for all people, nations, tongues, etc. 3)It was totally inspiring to me. All those cultures, all those different backgrounds and countries made me feel apart of something more than the Volunteer Park Church on Capital Hill in Seattle. Washington. So I look forward to being able to go to the 2020 GC if Jesus hasn’t come or called me home.
Does God want all His children to be and think just alike–ie. cut out with cookie cutters or formed in certain molds? Who decides which cookie cutter or mold? Look around at all the diversity of people, animals, fish, plants & organisms God created. It looks to me that God cherishes diversity. Maybe it would cost less to look in a mirror if we want to see people just alike.
1. People from all over the world = 70,000 from North America, 5,000 from Europe and Australia, and a token handful from the remaining (third world) countries–hardly representative of the membership percentages by region.
2. Study the same lesson each week. And you really think that is a good thing? A panel in Washington DC decides what will be important to each member and each congregation 2 years in advance? That is why many members choose NOT to study what is dictated from the GC.
That may be, but members need a choice. Not having a suggested format would be a great disadvantage to those in parts of the world where there is no access to Adventist Universities, colleges, etc. This link keeps us informed together of what is important, and they are composed by excellent scholars, whether you agree with them or not.
SS is a place where one can question and debate the lesson if they so choose, and all the lessons can be expanded very well by those who are creative enough to do so.
Very much so.
It’s actually not a bad idea.
It’s also quite a feat as it must be accessible to the widest range of people possible (in terms of backgrounds, cultures etc)
Good thinking, Dennis. So many seem bitter, if one reads what they are writing, that WO went down the tubes.
” Fifty nine percent of the delegates stood for the Bible and that is God’s will.”
And this is why there will be no change in the church and only tight fisted legalism. When the vote that is ‘God’s will’ is considered one that ‘stood for the bible’, there is no room for compromise or understanding. I guess 41% of the delegates and the church in general didn’t just have a rejected vote, they are in fact ‘going against the bible’ and NOT doing ‘God’s will’
the church did not decide anything… GOD decided the vote. Therefore there is not way the vote could EVER have gone in favor of WO as it is ‘against the Bible’ and not ‘God’s will’. Why did we waste millions of dollars having a committee to study it and waste the time having a vote then?
Wow. What kind of a church is almost 50% apostate and nobody seems to have an issue with it?
Let me just say from what I know of James Standish, he is certainly not against the GC as an instituion. He spent a number of years living in Washington working as a lawyer for the GC. Therefore, when he offers his comments about the GC I suspect they are from the context of only some who has worked for the institution can do. I therefore doubt his views are simply sour grapes, as Mr Foxworth argues.
Moreover, under James’ leadership, the SPD magazine is a not simply another mouthpiece of propaganda but a true place for discussion – like the old RH used to be. For WO, he ensured people from both sides of the issue were given multiple page spreads to make their arguments.
Finally, James can only risk such a potentially ‘career-ending’ move because of who is in SPD leadership. There was Barry Oliver, who has just retired, now replaced by Glenn Townend – both very humble and personable guys, but who are willing to take a risk. Pr Townend especially has led massive Church planting efforts in my own state when he was Conf Pres.
Now do I agree with everything they do, say or write? No – no one does with anyone else. The SPD is especially culturally, economically and socially diverse, with Western Aussies and traditional Papau New Guineans. But SPD leadership, and that means James Standish, are willing to risk giving a candid view. I doubt you’ll see that in the Adventist World (or whatever you call it in North America).
Steve Ferguson states that the journal Standish wrote this article in is “a true place for discussion”. No it is not. I wrote a comment in response to this article and it was rejected. Why? Because I dared to suggest Standish sounded like a sore loser. To express his personal views (as the editor of the official journal of the SPD) so stridently, is questionable at best. To then gag a comment made in response because it was suggested Standish seemed like a sore loser demonstrates it is not a place for discussion but rather a place for a “petulant” to have an inappropriate personal rant.
Kevin the SPD Record publication is still an official Church publication – it isn’t totally independent like ATody or Spectrum. But in comparison to other Church publications, the Record which we received fortnightly in Australia is amazingly open compared with the Adventist World, which is full of Ted Wilson articles and propaganda, which we receive every alternative fornight.
I know the Record is open because James Standish has published several ‘out there’ articles of mine. And then he published several letters to the editor attacking my article. So he has repeatedly allowed differing points of view.
As to your own personal experience, the fact your own personal ad hominem attack was not published hardly proves anything. If anything, and with respect, all it probably shows is you attacked the man and not the issue. Is it no wonders the moderators then didn’t publish your comments?
Calling someone a “sore loser” is worse than a personal rant.
Sounds something like Spectrum. The blog guards are really vigilant when it comes to conservative comments. One wonders whether all they want is “little sir echo.”
That’s what leaders and editors are supposed to do! And if you inferred he was a “sore loser” no wonder it wasn’t printed.
To imply that Standish’s comments were done with such bravery as to have his job in jeopardy is a bit of grandstanding. Standish is very talented in many areas. If he wants church employment he will have it.
The drama was overplay.
My first suggestion for any conference constituency meeting or general conference session is to prohibit church employees from being delegates because it is a conflict of interest for someone to be voting on matters that potentially impact their employment. Plus, it prevents any real accountability because the members are powerless to vote to replace someone who is not doing their job well or creating controversy instead of focusing us on doing the work God wants us doing.
I like that idea. Sessions should be about the laity holding the professional clergy accountable. Clergy should of course be there to advise and recommend, but the actual decision should be with the ordinary people.
That is how most local councils and Westminster parliaments work. The parliamentarians are themselves non-experts. The professional staff contribute by doing the professional expert analysis and recommending a solution. But the ultimate decision rests with the non-expert elected representatives.
William that sounds like a very good idea to me. I suspect it would go some way to achieving a greater balance between the clergy and the other 99% who are the laity.
As a professional musician, I work at churches of various denominations on Sundays (since my Adventist church does not typically compensate musicians). On July 5, I was ministering in an Episcopal church and heard a report coming from their general meetings. Evidently, their church governance uses a bicameral model (similar to the U.S. House and Senate) where one body contains the ministers and the other contains the laity. I’m not sure it would work in our church or even if it is a desirable change, but I did find it an interesting model to consider.
Half the delegates to GC Sessions are required to be laity.
Is it not also a conflict of interest for a member to vote on something that impacts their spiritual life? Which is of greater value, the paycheck or spiritual life?
If I might paraphrase Winston Churchhill, “Deciding important questions by a vote of a majority is the worst way to make wise decisions for any group except for all of the other ways of doing it.”
Dr. Taylor, they may well be some credibility to this comment by Churchhill.
But here is the issue. How do we determine what the church believes to have some identity that can be communicated to anyone who wants to know?
Any church has a right to define certain non-negotiable statements of faith that define the membership. And if you don’t agree, you must find some where else to fellowship. This is not crass exclusion, it simply common sense. It this is not the format, the church simply has no identity.
But, as suggested, who has the authority to determine and decide what those non-negotiable statements are? Ideally, we elect church officials to do that. But when church officials elect themselves, we doubt the outcome will represent the mind and will of the church, but rather, the mind and will of the “elitist” group who claim the qualification to make such a decision.
But even this is not the major problem. The political element in Adventism is not nearly so interested in truth, as they are in unity. And for the obvious reason. They can control the church if they can convince lay members they are highly qualified and all you have to do is “go along with the church”.
Couple this with some mystical none definable, “God is in control” even though we don’t know exactly how He is in control. We are not told. It is assumed, “We prayed”, and this, ipso facto, means the decision made is in harmony with God’s will and He is in “control”.
But God controls by way of scripture, and prayer is no magic “hocus pocus” formula apart from comparing scripture with scripture and then decide by way of scriptural evidence. But now we have prayer and unity with unity the final goal with the vain hope that maybe or perhaps it is also scriptural.
So Bill, can we take from this that you agree with many of James Standish’s points about GC Session structure and polity, even if you strongly disagree with his views on the particular issue about WO?
Well, I agree with at least some of his positions.
When the church opted for Pluralism, it lost any basis for definition and/or discipline.
I certainly disagree with the way the leaders have handled all the issues. It would seem they are far more interested in preserving the church, than preserving the truth.
The church is becoming less and less definable. I think it was God’s intent that the church would be more and more articulate as we near the end.
In the beginning, we were highly articulate about various fundamental issues they assumed were important and salvational. I am not sure at this point we have anything we consider important enough to be salvational. But this is what happens when you claim obedience to the law is not salvational.
In the end, you have no identity that has any dynamic meaning.
Love your neighbor, be nice, and give them a dozen cookies.
Some are fond of saying a democratic process will never unite. What would you prefer? A dictatorship?
Evidently yes. A dictatorship by the minority who want women’s ordination and are determined to get it, by hook or by crook.
When in the history of the world has the majority been right? It is always the Remnant who follow the Lamb. Broad is the way that leads to destruction. Narrow the way that leads to life. It is the little flock not the big majority who hear the Shepherd’s voice. Do you need any more analogies to help you get the point? Truth always begins with a minority.
When has anyone who has tried to force their views upon others ever been given God’s blessing?
Exactly Leo, thanks for making my point. When has God ever blessed anyone who tried to force others to do what they wanted? The WO YES vote was not to force the unwilling to let women serve God as pastors, it was to permit women called to serve, where the community could accept it. The No vote was the forcing others to do as I think vote.
There is a third choice: freedom and respect as demonstrated in Acts 15.
“There is a third choice: freedom and respect as demonstrated in Acts 15.”
But this statement lacks definition. What do you mean “freedom”? This is no small matter and requires some definition and qualification.
And you said, “As demonstrated in Acts. 15.”
Acts 15 is dealing with a transition from ceremonial law to the ministry of Christ in heaven, and what “freedom” the new believers had during that transition. It was hard for some to abandon the baggage of the ceremonial that had been a dynamic part of their religion.
So we have to define what particular transition are we to patronize while we make adjustments?
Some claim it is similar to the abandonment of slavery advocated by male headship, and the liberation of women to an equal position with men in church positions of authority. Others claim male headship is God ordained from the beginning and not negotiable.
This is not subject to transition. It demands a clear mandate of what and who is right. Neither side can “tolerate” the error of the other side.
Once again, it seems apparent that many, if not most, are not really willing to get down to what the issue is about and “cut to the chase” in defining the problem. It is a moral issue for both sides. There is no compromise nor “tolerance” for the other’s view that both sides consider faulty and non-biblical.
The church must define itself as supporting WO, or male headship. In which case, there is no middle ground as some see it.
Thank you for your article James Standish and for your courage… Well said
Fellow believers, it is with a heavy heart and much concern that I feel compelled to share a few comments in this space. Let me say first of all that I am not a practicing SDA however I have been fairly aware of issues that were tabled to be addressed at this year’s GC. I believe there were all very critical issues but my concern stems from the reactions and positioning that is taking place as a result of these decisions.
I would like to say that based on the views shared in this space that it seems the children of God are walking a fine line and one that if we are not careful we can quickly find ourselves in some very dark spaces contrary to will and grace of God.
I have read a brother suggesting that another is a “sore loser” how can there be winners and losers in God’s business? There can only be winners if we believe the will of God has been applied. How can we know that the will of God has been applied? Test everything by the word, where there be virtue we know that his will has been extoled. God’s word teaches us that through his love and mercy he may stay his hand for a season, maybe the decisions some of us sougth the rest of us were not ready for so God still has work to do with us. Let us not be impatient. The only thing that matters in the end is your personal salvation do not let these issues and decisions disconnect you from His purpose at this time. The devil will seek to win you by any means necessary. Trust in God, lean not on your own…
In the past the clergy had it much easier to pacify the masses, because of ignorance. However, in these end times the masses have become educated. Knowledge flourishes very broadly in the world, wide and deep. Many in the church have studied deeply, and many are in constant association with the HolySpirit who gives guidance, Holy truth, and yes, even new light for these end times. The SDA Church, by suggesting they have all the TRUTH, and that we should not study other Christian research & literature, have arrogantly assumed perfection and aren’t interested in what other Christians have brought forward in these end times. The hierarchy will tell us what we need to know. Hmmm. Head in the sand to preserve unsound doctrines, that were adapted in a furious moment of distress and disgrace. Doctrine discovered in a cornfield, that billions of other Christians have not been advised of by the Holy Spirit????
The GC hierarchy lacks the foresight, and the depth of wisdom required to lead this people into the eternal Promised Land. Salvation is a singular elective by each and every precious soul. Do not put your trust in any man. Seek the Holy Spirit with all your might. “The Holy Spirit IS GOD”.
The difference between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge comes a dime a dozen, wisdom requires works (Proverbs 4).
Let us also remember that where there is ignorance and lack of knowledge, the people perish. There is within our Adventist culture a deep (if narrow) vein of anti-intellectual persistence that I believe has moved laterally from conservative Protestantism into at least portions of our thought-leading administrative and evangelistic centers. With this ignorance is a fear of knowledge that might appear, on first glance, to contradict prime literal teachings of the Adventist faith. We need to be wisely fearless in the matter of knowledge and its dangers. By and large the human species has a wonderful, God-given hunger for the Truth in whatever form, and will spew error from its mouth, unless bribed to espouse a lie. Those most fearful of knowledge also seem to preach the innate stupidity and malleability of the human species. That’s their opinion, but I have found “never to underestimate the intelligence of the people; never to overestimate its knowledge.” It’s an old canon of journalism and the information age, both of which are highly criticized at this time for their supposed negative effect on our Church and on conservative values.
There is within our Adventist culture a deep (if narrow) vein of intellectual persistence that I believe has moved laterally from liberal Bible interpretation to Spectrum and AToday and these proponents of “big tent” Adventism would likely essentially nullify much that is known as Adventism.
One Pastor wrote in part with respect to Spectrum: “It is an extreme group with much less influence than it presents itself as
having. It is useful occasionally to see what they are thinking but to spend serious time there is to waste time.”
What influence does AToday have? I have no idea.
Why didn’t brother Standish bring up the issue of expenses before the session (or any previous session)? Surely, San Antonio wasn’t the first one he attended.
And to the question of making the delegates better reflect the membership …, if that were to happen, things would seriously tilt towards the global south (the developing world). Views of women’s ordination among women there may not be as predictable as it may be among women in North America, Europe and Australia. Then our dear brother Standish may hurry to come up with another proposal.
Now, the church is facing a very complex challenge in the scale of diversity it contains. While it is good to honestly explore options on how to make decisions in the world church, carefully weighing viscerally simplistic solutions would also be important, I think.
A careful reading of Adventist history will show that the role of the feminine in our development has been extraordinarily strong. That began to change (numerically and spiritually)as the ministry of Ellen White drew to a close. During our recent GC Session, which I attended as an exhibitor on behalf of Adventist Today, it was very clear in my discussions (in Spanish) with Latin American visitors and delegates that the role of the feminine in these parts of the world is also exceedingly strong, and it was the Latin women who voiced most interest in questions related to gender and leadership, and showed most support for women in full-time (ordained) ministry. Even in our local congregations, though the men may hold the titles of leadership, a majority of the dedicated performance of ministry seems to gravitate to gifted women of Spirit….. On the matter of delegates, it is unfortunate that such a small proportion of the overall representation at our twice-a-decade conventions comes from that leading arm of local ministry. Greater feminine insight at these meetings undoubtedly would add wisdom and substance to our discussions….
My experience as a local church leader and serving on church boards tells me the inclusion of women offers a broadening and balance that the church would suffer without. Psychology has indicated that women tend to use parts of their brains that men don’t tend to use. And women use their brains in a more integrated way. Surely any group, the church included, suffers when limiting women or excluding women. I think the balance of combining the mental faculties of both genders is healthy and wise.
If cost is the main concern, perhaps an electronic means of discussing and voting could be arranged for the next GC?
There would be no need for travel nor for hotel expenses.
I’m not a prophet of doom I think from the look of things SDA as a church will split into two those who will in future support WO, Gayism, Lesbianism and other group that will be more conservative by rejecting any of the above. Africa, and South Americans and some Asians will form their own GC whiles North America, Oceania, Europe and some others will get their own GC. I think these will surely happen before Jesus come. Where will you be when you happen to be alive to witness this?
The reaction of WO rejection by the church from people belonging to continents I have shown speaks to this fact. People from Africa, Asia, South America etc are calm after the session but their other counterparts from the N America, Oceania, and Europe are wild the schism is beginning to show. God save SDA we in the Catholic fraternity are watching with intense interest
It’s interesting because, at least at the beginning, I got the opposite feeling–much of the anger seemed to be coming from the “winners” who called the west rebellious, and compared us to Korah and we would be punished. It was so bad I wondered why any one would be part of this family! Reason was not on the table.
“People from Africa, Asia, South America etc are calm after the session but their other counterparts from the N America, Oceania, and Europe are wild the schism is beginning to show.”
How right you are. Liberals in NAD seem to be inconsolable.
For a start James is not a leader in Australia but just a journo who happens to be editor of our sole official propaganda magazine here. Secondly, James is not taking a risk by disclosing his left leaning because the majority of leadership think his way….drill down into the pews and you will find no sympathy for James’ WO favouritism….
Speak for yourself Danny. Nearly everyone in the 400-plus member Church I attend in Perth would support WO.
And James is a leader, in that he has power to convey his thoughts across a division every fortnight. That is real power.
But I don’t think the Record is propaganda. Or rather, it is the least propaganda out of all our official publications. Come on, just compare the fortnightly Adventist World with the Record. The Record at least allows for multiple points of view and letters of dissent to the editor. I bet James will even allow letters complaining about him!
You wouldn’t have that in the Adventist World publication, with people complaining about Ted Wilson and his regular argument.
Nonetheless, you are correct that James will be “protected” because the majority of SDA leadership, like the ones with actual theology degrees and who work as Ministers, agree with him. James will be protected because despite the vote, the SDA Church’s top scholars and academics agree the same as him.
Just an observation: The purpose of the World Adventist Review is for information, reporting of events and projects, and news. It is not for politicing or providing “different points of view.”
The regular Adventist Review should be doing more of that, but then that’s why we have Adventist Today and Spectrum.
I am not sure I understand the concern with the cost of the meetings. If you break the the cost down by membership it is a rediculously small amount per year per member to make it happen.
For 3rd world members, it is an outrageous and wasteful expense.
If I understood Dr. Standish, his points were not what or how the GC delegates should or should not have voted. What he did was to raise questions related to corporate and personal ethics, organizational structure, economics of scale, and corporate priorities. Comments related to other matters are extraneous to the author’s points. Some my find it more satisfying to continue to play their one-note theme. It is more productive to examine the matters Standish has put forth and examine how the Adventist church can use its considerable resources to address and attract 21st Century women and men.
I agree!
As long as the church continues to be run as a dictatorship with a congress of delegates handpicked by the leaders who monitor the votes for compliance with the policies and directives of those in power, any convention is a waste of time and money.
The church needs a revolution demanding democratic procedures to ensure its future integrity. Leaders who rule with an iron fist block the Holy Spirit from working within the hearts and minds of the members. Church officers who believe that they must protect the church by keeping it under their thumb do not trust the God they claim to serve.
The very existence of the GC is a major concern. It’s an agency that basically offers no benefit to any local church, while collecting big money from local churches. I wonder if anyone wants to come up with any one benefit that a local church gets because the GC “exists.” What would happen if the GC were just dissolved today? Certainly nothing!
Another increasing concern is the effort made by the Wilson administration to centralize power at the top of the pyramid. Apparently they feel that they need more power in order to be able to have m ore control. This is always very dangerous.
My comment cannot be considered to foster unity. The WO question was only the top of an ugly iceberg that is ready to topple. It only distracted our minds from dealing honestly with the investigative judgement founded in a cornfield where it should have stayed. The stretches taken in scripture on that subject put the WO scriptural discussions to shame. Our church may go into schism but it won’t be WO that causes it. It will be silly doctrines without merit that divides us in the end.
Some Pharisees got the same reaction than this man has concerning the money spent in the organisation of GS Session 2015. When that lady poured the most pricey perfume upon Jesus’ feet before his death, these Pharisees reproached that lady arguing that that money could have been used to help the needy. This Australian writer better be careful about his judgment for the money used in God’s cause. Can he tell me the impacts of our presence in San Antonio upon the people of that great city? Elsewhere, I really believe that if women’s ordination wasn’t defeated, he would have had a totally different appreciation of the expenses.
Elios, you cannot hardly analogize Mary’s anointing of Jesus with the GC session in San Antonio, regardless of a favorable impression on the people in that city. While I agree that sometimes the church is penny-wise and pound-foolish in regard to spending money, the GC sessions are more analogous to an Academy Award show where celebrities vote for each other and then congratulate each other for winning the trophy. The church needs to be completely reorganized from the bottom up; not the top down! Unfortunately, that requires a revolution and the careers of some worthy people may be sacrificed in the process.
“Do we have Adventist management experts, organizational counselors, legal minds, political advisors to lay out a plan for the Adventist church to retool the mechanisms to reach these goals?”
I doubt that anyone cares more about the advent movement than I do.
Now if I were to say that about the protestant movement, there would be people who would say, “Which part? The Calvinist part? The Methodist part?”
My answer would be, “The Lord has called some people to one or more emphases among the many truths about himself. For the protestant movement to succeed, we need to acknowledge that those who have been called to a different emphasis than ourselves can be just as protestant as we are.”
In the late 1840s, the Lord called some people to a new emphasis. Today, some people think it was seventh-day sabbath keeping. Other people think it was the return of Jesus. Some people think it was health reform. Some people think it was religious liberty.
Whatever it was, what did the adventists do in the nineteenth century?
The pulled out a clean sheet of paper–in a manner similar in some ways to the clean-sheet-of-paper approach by the Wesley brothers and some of their friends.
No, I’m not suggesting another “church” organization. But if the people whom the Lord has called to a specific emphasis could start with a clean sheet of paper, maybe the lessons learned in the process could benefit the already-existing organization.
Yes, Roger, we have had and do have competent management experts! One, Paul Cone, PhD, back a few decades ago, was commissioned by Neal Wilson, the then GC president, to create an organizational model to the GC executive committee. Paul completed his assignment and submitted his paper to Pres. Wilson. Paul told me that Wilson looked at the document, put his arm around his shoulder and told him that he did not understand that the church was not a business. Paul responded by saying, “Elder Wilson, you have just thrown a wet blanket on all my work.” End of discussion.
Ray Cottrell and others some years ago produced a church organizational proposal. It, like the Cone document, lies in some obscure file cabinet.
Roger, that sounds like an organizational convention to me and since the existing GC “corporation” and it subsidiary divisions, unions, and local conferences own the name and all of the properties, you are talking about a clean sheet of paper forming a new entity to start from scratch. That has been done with a lot of negative publicity being spewed from the GC. Reform must come from within by leaders with vision and courage–a very rare commodity, and some careers in the church would not survive.
The “PETER PRINCIPLE” states every person, and every organization always rises to a level of incompetency. i believe the SDA Church hierarchy
reached its level of incompetency in the 1970’s.
i seriously question the Conferences and individual churches need the GC and its exorbitant free spending style any longer. It is a “thorn” in the side of the Church. It is the tail wagging the dog. Also a fact finding search team could determine if the Unions are viable any longer????
evaluate
It may even be the “inverse” Peter Principle where people are promoted BECAUSE of their incompetency. I have seen where church officers who should have been fired are moved to other positions because of their connections or the lack of courage among the other leaders. The church is actually asking ineffective leaders who are beyond retirement age to delay retirement because of a supposed lack of qualified people to replace them. This is purely a plan by those in power to remain in power.
And regarding the unions, it may be better to abolish the local conferences and leave the unions in place. The local conferences were established when travel was by horse instead of airplanes and communication was by Pony Express instead of by Federal Express. Sale of the local conference office properties would generate a huge windfall to the church and also immediately solve the problem of racially divided church administrations.
It’s a difficult decision to do away with the diversity and awe we often feel at GC sessions. It brings about unity. Yet I have also wondered about the exorbitant funds used to have this session. Perhaps it could be done on a division basis to cut down on travel or have voting done through technology.
I also question the conflict of interest question of having administrators carry so much voting power. It matters not which way it went, it is ethically unfair to have one part of the church decide for another. We certainly wouldn’t force women pastors on largely Muslim or Catholic countries! It’s a no-brainer to me–I just don’t understand. And I pray too.
Yes, it is time for some of James Standish’s ideas to be put to the test by vote. Those who refuse change will stagnate. There will be hardly any churches left in western countries in the next decade if we don’t change in those areas.
Let’s see, I’ve now attended seven GC sessions, spanning 45 years, flying in from various parts of the world to large gathering points in Atlantic City, New Orleans, Indianapolis, St. Louis, and others, including San Antonio, the most recent. My impression from my earliest days has been that “getting sent to GC” by the denomination is often a reward for good behavior, especially in the Third World. Individuals who might never have the resources to comfortably visit the United States are given a chance to experience the Life for a week or so and make connections that may eventually open the way for them to study or emigrate permanently to the US. I have been told by reputable sources that this is one of the “good reasons” we often celebrate our Sessions in the US—delegates from other divisions see the US as a welcome tourist destination.
Don’t misunderstand me, there are many other fair-to-good reasons for focusing on North America as a GC destination. The primary point here is that there is a social/touristic element that makes the US attractive to a significant number of delegates, their families, and their denominational leadership.
Another important reason for having GC sessions in North America is the cost to the exhibitors to transport all of the booths and products to a more distant location. Also, now with Hope Channel and 3ABN, transmitting the TV signals without having the Satellite truck is complex and expensive.
When it comes to a nominating committee process, it may be time to ask each division to caucus and place two names into a “glass fish bowl” as potential GC President. Each name must get a 66% vote in the division caucus. Those names are joined with those from the other divisions chosen in the same manner and added to that “glass fishbowl.” At the GC Session a season of prayer is offered with those 26 named persons on the platform. A youthful member might be asked to come forward and reach into the hat and prayerfully pull out a name. The name chosen is then presented to the delegates as the nomination for the new GC President. Another variation would be to select three names, send them to the Nominating Committee to review and bring one of the three names back as the nominee.
The session could be conducted with division wide meetings and video conferencing. Only those nominated for the office of GC President and the nominating committee need be in the same location. This would eliminate the issues of translation. After the GC President is chosen, the nominating committee can bring reports on other names and put them out over the next day to the division meetings around the world for a vote.
Division reports can be totally video taped and shared with the other divisions nightly for play back. Many members could be involved in such an approach and the cost could be cut dramatically.
Allen: This is an interesting suggestion but until the leadership is prevented from intimidating the people involved in the nomination process and controlling the names in the bowl, the result will continue to be unsatisfactory. I once received a phone call from a Senior Conference Officer during the nominating committee process suggesting that it would be unfortunate if something bad happened to me and made me an offer that (he thought) I couldn’t refuse. Nothing in the above process would prevent that.
Richard,
What do you suggest? Tweak the idea. Right now the thought of a change of current leadership is perceived as an act of rebellion. Something has to be done to restore confidence in the system. Why does one man need to be in the same role term after term. I am willing to take my chances on 26 options and let the Lord open the way for change. If there was no change when the chance was 1 in 26 I would think this is really God’s will.
Some times the Lord allows great disappointments to bring us to our knees, from which good things come.
Allen:
I agree that your suggestion is better than the current system. Perhaps there should also be term limits to remove some of the incentive for current leaders to attempt to “manage” the process. I have seen so much corruption (worldwide, not only NAD) that I think there needs to be some housecleaning as part of a new process.
“A youthful member might be asked to come forward and reach into the hat and prayerfully pull out a name.”
Why not “a female youthful member” since so much focus seems to be on WO?
An appeal for unity at the session is like motherhood, yet it is code word for vote “uniformity.” It was not a unity thing it was a divisive thing. A majority vote only shows who has the most votes, including which voting blocks have no skin in the game being from a male dominant society. This approach did zero to unite the church membership. It merely announced who is valued and who is not, which divisions matter and which do not. While the vote was allegedly to unite it did nothing to unite us in mind or spirit. The Holy Spirit will have to led us to unity, don’t expect it from the GC leadership. It was clear it was about making winners and losers. As I sat and watched I didn’t see any hearts or minds changed, only lines drawn more clearly. As hard as it is for the YES members to deal with this, probably they are better able to handle it than the NO members who elevated the issue to the status of above a fundamental belief.
James, your opinion would never jeopardize your career; but I would contend that if you wanted the job, took the job and accept the pay, you should support and promote the Church. But I see many Pastors and paid personnel (and in grant) that wish to promote their individual ideologies over Church or Sound Doctrine.
I and the many donating think there is much value add in a single General Conference; the sharing and organizational building value is priceless. I would have no problem where it is held; but you mention many cities that would add massive security costs.
Do you want to have it in Melbourne or Sidney? The people and Country are complaining that the jail population has risen 10% last year; they ran out of space a long time ago and much of this is juvenile crime (over 20% with intent of bodily injury) from ABS. Are you doing anything to address these issues from your role as the Church adviser?
You mention stewardship; are you monitoring and advising the charities there? Do they feed, clothe or educate the living; or deliver the viewpoints of the Church? Are they only promoting individual ideologies in degradation of society there?
We have a PLAN; HIS PLAN. We have jobs to do. We do not have funds, time or desire to promote ideologies. We are about our FATHERS business. We are the Church; indivisible. Get on board and hold on for dear life; the ride may be difficult at times, but the rewards are beyond this world.
You speak of the need to be doing God’s business. What are you actually DOING? You speak familiar theory that has comforted masses in the church into complete inaction and the illusion that by existing we are somehow doing God’s work. When are you going to discover the power of the Holy Spirit, stop talking about the doing and actually DO?
“James, your opinion would never jeopardize your career; but I would contend that if you wanted the job, took the job and accept the pay, you should support and promote the Church. But I see many Pastors and paid personnel (and in grant) that wish to promote their individual ideologies over Church or Sound Doctrine.”
I wish I had said that. It certainly reflects what many of us see transpiring in the SDA church. Just where is the loyalty of church employees?
Marilyn, you’ll have to wait until Jesus comes for Him to call you home!!
Reading the comments on the blogs here at Atoday proves
all aren’t on the same page, of right and wrong. That’s okay, there’s room for all in God’s House. We each can never be right all the time, but we can be wrong most of the time. When it comes to the current Church world organization, most, it seems believe there is something terribly wrong with our church. Unfortunately the problems
have been exacerbated by the actions just concluded at the recent GC Meeting in San Antonio. The main issue of Women’s Ordination should never have been presented to the membership at large. There were already precedents set, where for many years women in the USA, EUROPE, AUSTRALIA, CHINA, ETC, have been ordained, and commissioned, and are Senior and Associate Pastors in many churches, lovingly received in churches whereto they were called. The GC Leadership were at fault in tabling this issue, knowing it to be strongly at odds,with two diverse Cultural factions.
The 3rd world faction, having been the recipient of missionary input over the years with regard to the status of women being unequal to the male, which is the prevailing attitude in the 3rd world countries, Christian or otherwise, voted no, I believe, not realizing how strongly the Western SDA Churches were in support of “EQUAL STATUS” of women in the majority of society, and the ‘LAW of the LAND”.
Continued…..
status
Continuing:
This has created a quandary in the Western SDA Church.
Having the situation of “permitting the 3rd World SDA Church to continue not to Ordain Women, should that be their choice, to being voted by the 3rd World SDA Church by a huge majority, that the Western SDA Church should not
allow Women’s Ordination in their hemisphere. This has been received as a slap in the face, of not believing they have been guided by the HOLY SPIRIT. The Holy Spirit may not give identical guidance to all the Church at the same time, in recognition of strong Cultural differences.
This of course has presented the view by some that the 3rd World doesn’t appreciate the 130 year support to the missionary work there, as well as general support of their donations of hard earned moneys for the 3rd World SDA Church general funding. Herein lies the dilemma, gross mismanagement by the General Conference Officers for tabling an issue bound to cause a great schism in the SDA Church.
I wonder if this author would have written this article if the vote had been in favor of Conferences deciding women’s ordination? However, the issue of the cost of the General Conference has upset me also, probably due to my being raised in lands where the church is struggling financially, pastors are paid a pittance and they have no way to get to the many churches they serve. Training pastors, supporting Global Mission Pioneers, and building small church sanctuaries would be an awesome way to reach more people for Christ. But I must quickly remind myself that the “World Church” is designed to be a representative body, and has its due cost. If the GC were not held every 5 years what would the decision-making process look like? Do Spring and Fall sessions at the General Conference in Maryland achieve the same results? My main concern is the question of whether power groups have been pre-determined the decisions and whether the open votes are intimidating to those who want to vote “nay.”
If you compare the way Amazing Facts leaders and representatives were treated to the treatment given AT reporters at the 2015-San Antonio-GC you will understand the bias that existed against WO and other progressive ideas at this meeting. Representatives of AT were treated unfairly when they tried to report from the floor. Amazing Facts representatives introduced from the podium with deference and included in the program. GC/SDA officials do not understand responsible dissent and don’t seem to have a clue as to how to deal with it.
In this paper I conceptualize organizational dissent as the expression of disagreements and contradictory opinions that result from the experience of feeling apart from one’s organization. Employees experience dissent when they recognize incongruence between actual and desired states of affairs. In a perfect world, Standish, AT and Spectrum, and others who hold dissenting views to GC policies would be respected, acknowledged, and listened to in such a way that we could all grow and learn from each other. In studying employees’ expressions of dissent we might contribute to our understanding of what the church needs to learn about in meeting the needs of those it serves. Does anyone care? Are we just keeping score? Is it all about politics?
I find it “amazing” how the right-ultra conservatives get so much preference in church governance, when they solicit, accept, and spend tithe dollars that should be going to the GC… or
has that changed…
“James, your opinion would never jeopardize your career; but I would contend that if you wanted the job, took the job and accept the pay, you should support and promote the Church. But I see many Pastors and paid personnel (and in grant) that wish to promote their individual ideologies over Church or Sound Doctrine.”
I wish I had said that. It certainly reflects what many of us see transpiring in the SDA church. Just where is the loyalty of church employees?
It appears there is a line drawn in the sand among God’s people, I write this with some trepidation fearing I may offend. It is a no win scenario except for the adversary of souls, and we have the audacity to believe just because God doesn’t react He has sanctioned this no matter how the events had unraveled.
AToday, this is not directed at you (although sometimes misguided, I Love you guys).
Amazing Facts is a Religious Organization with over 150,000 Baptisms and a related extension. The rest are supporting entities. They either feed, clothe or educate the living; or promote and support the Church.
I would contend the Church not only has right, but responsibility in both stewardship and representation. These supporting entities solicit within the name of the Church.
There were more organizations; but anyone profiting or using solicited funds to discriminate against Freedom of Religious Speech may have had other issues.
It was a big meeting, much to accomplish and with security concerns; a lot of things to juggle. Maybe we can make constructive recommendations? Just a thought.
It is not at all correct to speak of Amazing Facts as ultra-right conservative organization. Because an organization supports the Truth of Scripture should it be the object of calumny?
No matter how big Amazing Facts becomes it would do well to remember it’s basic roots.
Joe Crews the original founder-speaker of Amazing Facts kept it factual and amazing during his tenure.
I worked as a local pastor in the seventies alongside Joe in the Arizona Conference. His materials, and message were simple and straightforward. Joe Crews was not a politician or slick media-infused individual. He never accepted tithe or solicited it even when it was just implied for the support of his ministry. He never expressed anything that was divisive or took sides in denominational disputes. Anyone who knew Joe personally never had a problem with him that I know of because of theology. He was biblical and led by example. I really doubt that he would have been as anti WO as present administration and Brother Doug are at Amazing Facts. At one of his evangelistic meetings in Show Low, Arizona, Joe Crews visited a Department of Forestry Work detail camp for inmates from Maricopa County. I will never forget how he men and prayed with a young man who had come up to us and volunteered that he was gay estranged from his family. The love and compassion that Joe showed him is such a contrast that persons have not seen in present encounters with Amazing Facts personnel. Times have changed, but some basic things should not have. I would hope that we can all improve our present witness to a world in turmoil. Amazing Facts needs to work with ordained women Adventist Pastors!
“Joe Crews was not a politician or slick media-infused individual. He never accepted tithe..”
My recollection is that he did indeed accept tithe although I have no knowledge of his soliciting tithe.
AF is doing fine, thank you, sans female pastorettes.
Interested Coward, this is a very late comment, but you hide behind anonymity and slander those women who God has called to serve him. I’d advise you not to go near any woods where Bears live, for the same reason I’d withhold any comments about Elisha or Doug Bachelor’s bald heads. It appears it is not pleasing to God to have His servants mocked.
Whatever our position is on the decisions made at the recent GC session, we all ought to applaud the courage and honesty of James Standish in speaking out about inequalities and excesses of the session. While women comprise 57% of membership, only 17% were represented as delegates. What percentage of members are names on rolls of those who have stopped attending. How better could the $A45 million cost have been spent in furthering the kingdom of God? (During the ten days about 170,000 children under five died from hunger and disease). James Standish puts his finger on the underlying issue: our drift from our radical Reformation roots, while the central message of which was justification by faith alone in Jesus, it also emphasized Scripture as the only creed and the priesthood of all believers.
In all the time spent in showcasing our church during the GC session , how much time was given to address the issue of the great losses in membership we’ve sustained (11.4 million out of 31.8 million baptisms over the past 40 years, not counting deaths, and since 2000 for every 100 baptisms a staggering 43.4 on average). The Summit on Nurture and Retention (October 2013) called for the building of “loving and Christ-like relationships within the local church” as “an urgent necessity,” indicating that many of our members lack a meaningful relationship with Jesus.
The critical question is why are we losing members? Can it be partially caused by very little study with prospective members in the quest to add members?
“How much better it would have been if the first messenger of truth had faithfully and thoroughly educated these converts in regard to all essential matters, even if fewer had been added to the church under his labors. God would be better pleased to have six thoroughly converted to the truth than to have sixty make a profession and yet not be truly converted.” {CS 104.3}
Record editor, James Standish ,erred in questioning the functions of the GC and only ended up displaying a leadership lapse. The GC in Session has spoken (three times now) on a matter that has polarised the Church for far too long. We all need to respect that decision, whichever way it went. Indeed, the onus is on our leaders to preach that and uphold our institutions worldwide. Making provocative statements or outrightly encouraging or even fomenting rebellion as some leaders have done does not advance the cause. We serve a God of order and disorder belongs elsewhere.
The GC in session has spoken three times on a critical issue and in all three cases has made a serious error as a sizable percentage of Adventists in the First World believe.
We now can “respect” those decisions by ignoring them in the North American Division. If the NAD will not or can not move ahead on its own, then it falls to the Unions of the NAD who wish to ordain women to move quickly. The GC will do nothing because they know any attempt to do that will interrupt the cash flow that they absolutely require to support their budget.
It is a win-win situation.The GC gets to tell its constituents in the Third World and fundamentalists in the First that they prohibit the ordination of women while individuals Unions can follow the leading of the Spirit and move ahead to rectify a grave injustice.
Everyone can be happy.
What is someone that contends they are a member of the Body, solicits and receipts in the name of the Church and does not provide for such purpose? Worse than moneychangers?
Maybe the assumption of a serious error “of” the Body, is instead a serious error “in” the Body and should be handled as such.
Maybe they can get real jobs, pay to start their own church, register with the IRS and do whatever they want. The blood, sweat and tears of multitudes created this one.
Otherwise would this not be blackmail or extortion with that which belongs to GOD? Then would the analogy not be for them to go create their own little universe and minion, and do whatever they want with their gifts?
The worst part; this was one of the threats publicly made. Such spoilt children.
I Love your reverse logic Ervin, it does make everyone think; thanks.