Choosing Church Leaders Wisely
by Sam Geli, December 3, 2015: WARNING-(Disclaimer) Nominating committees in many Adventist churches are in the process of electing officers for the new year, at this time of the year. If you are satisfied with the process and the criteria that are used, and are happy with the status quo, stop reading this article.
To rule or “oversee” the church means to serve the church. In the household of God, the concept of “oversight” is radically transformed and interpreted entirely in terms of “deaconship” or “ministry” or “service.” The office of the one-man pastor has no Scriptural support. Nowhere does the New Testament ever imply that one man (pastor or local “first” elder) is to have sole authority over a local congregation. On the contrary, the earliest churches enjoyed the ministries of multiple elders whose job it was to pastor the flock (cf. Acts 20:17,28; 1 Peter 5:1,2).
A most unhealthy trend among some Adventist churches which have tried to implement this more Scriptural model is the multiplicity of pastors-elders will be assumed. The point of this article rather will be to argue against the traditional (worldly) view of authority in the church bound up in the concept of the church “office.” Sometimes the local church elders dominate the leadership role in the local church to the detriment of the congregation. There are no term limits on church elders and the incumbents tend to rule on and on, perpetuating their influence over several generations.
That might sound strange at first. After all, didn’t Paul write to the Romans: “Inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office”? (Romans 11:13, KJV). And in his first letter to Timothy, did not Paul write of “the office” of a bishop” and “the office of a deacon” (1 Tim. 3:1,10,13, KJV)?
Those words certainly do appear in the King James Version of the Bible. But what is truly astonishing is how foreign to the Greek text those terms are. In the Romans text it is his diakonian, his ministry or “deaconship,” which Paul magnifies. In 1 Timothy 3:1 it is episkopes, “an oversight,” which is sought, which may or may not bear the traditional connotation of “church office.” Most interesting of all is how the King James Version translates a single Greek verb, diakoneo (“to serve”) with the clumsy phrase “use the office of a deacon” in 1 Timothy 3:10,13.
Are these mere semantics? Does it matter whether or not we regard elders and deacons as holding “offices”? I believe it matters insofar as it presupposes a worldly authority structure in which person dominates person. This type of authority has no Scriptural sanction. In many Adventist churches today the Board of Elders assumes the primary role of leadership, surpassing the local Church Board.
The oversight of the church is not an office but a function. Leaders lead by example and by submission. Elders are just that: older, wiser people in the church who are known and trusted and admired and imitated, whose opinions and insights and advice are sought, whose character and spirituality are beyond reproach. This pastoring is a role or function, but it is not an office invested with certain powers or political authority.
But is not this type of authority implied in the New Testament’s exhortation of believers to “obey” our leaders? “Obey your leaders and submit to them,” wrote the author of Hebrews, “for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing – for that would be harmful to you” (Heb. 13:17, NRSV). We might note also the basic meaning of the term “bishop” (episkopos), which literally means “overseer.”
At first glance this concept seems to create an immediate tension with the concept of diakonia, “deaconship” or “service” or “ministry.” In fact, these two terms, “deacon” and “bishop,” evoke contradictory images. Yet we know that all elders are deacons (i.e., servants). These two concepts can be reconciled. The same people are called to both rule and obey.
The key to unraveling that tension is to be found in passages such as Matthew 20:25-28 and Mark 10:42-45. In these passages Jesus clearly points out that spiritual authority is exercised in an entirely different way from worldly authority.
To rule or “oversee” the church means to serve the church. In the household of God, the concept of “oversight” is radically transformed and interpreted entirely in terms of “deaconship” or “ministry” or “service.” Peter states this explicitly in 1 Peter 5:1-5. “I exhort the elders…to pastor the flock of God among you, exercising the oversight, not under compulsion but willingly” (vv. 1-2, my translation). Furthermore, they are not to exercise authority as “lords” but as “examples” (v. 3). “In the same way” younger Christians are to accept the authority of the elders (v. 5a), “and all of you must clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another” (v. 5b, NRSV).
To illustrate this point we need look no further than Jesus’ great disciplinary outline of Matthew 18:15-20. Of course it is the duty of any member of the body, not just a (serving) leader, to approach the one who has sinned; and in any case a member who has been sinned against must also approach the offender to reconcile (cp. also Luke 17:3,4). If reconciliation and/or repentance is not achieved, does the case then go to the elders? Not necessarily. A third and possibly fourth party is brought in, but Jesus doesn’t indicate that the third or fourth parties need to be elders. If that effort is unsuccessful, does it then go to the elders? No. On the contrary, it goes straight to the entire church body for prayerful resolution. Just where are the elders in all of this? If they truly are the “rulers” and decision-makers of the church, surely they would figure prominently in this passage. But they don’t.
The ramifications of this fact are far-reaching. It means that the elders are not the primary decision-makers in the church, contrary to much standard Adventist church practice. In the early church it was the Holy Spirit operating through the context of the entire body which made decisions on behalf of the church (cp. Acts 13:2,3; 15:22; 1 Cor. 1:10-15).
Acts 20:
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Titus 5:
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
1 Peter 5:
1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
The offices are taken willingly without without constraint. The offices serve HIM; not individual itchy ears. The offices are not for the puffy or in other desires; they serve…
A mother wanting her two sons to sit on the left and right of CHRIST generated the response of Matthew 20 (and Mark 10).
diakonois (διακόνοις) is a pool of servants.
diakonoi (διάκονοι) is a accumulation or set of specific tasked servants (1 Timothy 3:12).
diakonos (διάκονος) is a single servant.
diakonous (διακόνους) the office or pool (1 Timothy 3:8 and 2 Corinthians 3:6 only).
Hope this helps.
Sam,
I was utterly excited by reading your observations on ministry and leadership in the church! The thoughts you expressed are just the “tip of the iceberg” of the model we find in scripture for how the church should operate and which we would do well to rediscover.
I had the immense blessing a dozen years ago to be part of a new church plant where we devoted ourselves to studying scripture and structuring our church culture to operate according to the Biblical model under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. One of the big changes we made was to get rid of the Nominating Committee because God’s empowerment for ministry has no time limits. Instead, we use a “connections” process where people who feel moitvated to a particular ministry role are evaluated and “connected” to it for however long they feel God wants them doing it. As a result we have “natural” leadership using the gifts the Holy Spirit has placed in individuals. The entire spirit of the church is so radically different that we draw a continuous stream of visitors from other SDA churches, even several hours drive away, coming to see if it actually works. I can’t tell you how many exclamations of amazement I have heard from them about what they have seen.
The Biblical model of the church under the Holy Spirit will work today if we will just follow the directions.
William,
Awesome comments on an awesome article!
Some time back our church plant adopted the “connections” approach. And it facilitated a positive transformation in our leadership processes, combining the strengths of voluntary service with a functional method for affirming leaders.
For some leadership positions we have found it necessary to establish term limits, not on the rendering of service, but on being “in charge”.
Recently we merged with another church plant. The new pastor has by-passed the “connections” model and proposed a “streamlined” board consisting primarily of Elders. I fear this will be huge step backwards!
“The office of the one-man pastor has no Scriptural support.”
“The oversight of the church is not an office but a function.”
Well spoken and so correct. The traditional “church” service and hierarchy is straight out of paganism and Catholic priesthood. The pulpit-pew system not only puts an overwhelmingly undue burden on the “pastor,” but it absolves the person in the pew from any responsibility for evangelism, study, whatever.
It’s up to the pastor to impart to the laity what he’s been hearing from God, and the laity sits on its pew waiting for the impartation and entertainment from the platform.
Also, in small groups — house churches such as thrived in the First Century church — relationships among believers are more intimate and transparent than often is possible in a large congregation. It’s also possible to have a high degree of accountability.
The idea that no one is in charge except the Holy Spirit and that each person contributes according to the gifts the Holy Spirit has given him is anethema to many who have grown up in the traditional church structure.
Thank you for articulating the subject so well!
I confess that I probably don’t understand either the article or some of the comments.
First off, the way the word, “office”, was used by my parents (both SdA) and most of their friends when I was a boy didn’t imply “rulership” in the sense of telling other members what to do.
Second, I believed in the ’50s and still do that the people who promote themselves for offices or titles are the least qualified to hold those positions.
Third, If there is a way for all of the members of each congregation to be involved in making every decision, I’d be interested in that but, when I was a boy, that would have been impractical or impossible. The first elder (aka head elder) either made most of the decisions between board meetings or he assigned other elders to make decisions–usually for a week at a time.
I had been a Sabbath School member for nearly four decades and a voting member for two decades before I ever heard an Adventist employ the phrase “board of elders”. I’m guessing it is used in Presbyterian congregations but when and how did Adventists start using that phrase and (if people who use it can answer please) what, exactly, is the function of the “board of elders”?
I’m also concerned about the tendency to think of–refer to–offices in local congregations as “jobs”. Such officers are not unpaid employees of the conference and the pastor isn’t a manager or foreman.
Roger,
Over the years I’ve seen plenty of people who used their “office(s)” in the church to exercise increasing domination over the church and mold it according to their concepts, often to the larger detriment of the church. So I believe we need to adjust our thinking from “church offices” to “service roles.”
No, I don’t believe there is a way for every member to be involved in making every decision because that risks devolving into having those who think they know disputing with those who actually do know how to do things. So I think you would enjoy seeing how my church operates without elected offices. We respect each other for their giftedness and the ministry roles God has made obvious that He wants them doing. Where I easily remember business meetings at other churches quickly turning into loud arguments and the domineering ruling with an iron hand, our business meetings are more like a happy church social where if there is a proposal from someone regarding their ministry area, we support it. A few months ago we had a meeting where we had our longest and most intense discussion of the budget. I don’t remember anyone arguing and I think it took us an hour to be ready to vote and it passed by a large majority.
I love it when a church is focused on service and mission instead of control.
William, et al,
In the organizational model you like, is there an intentional effort to involve younger or less experienced members as “assistants” of those who have a calling to lay ministry with the goal of those younger or less experienced members later taking on more responsibility?
Back when young people were being encouraged to think of doing overseas missionary work someday, those steps in mentoring we considered useful. Even in the case that the young person might not move into a more responsible position in the local congregation (stateside), the idea was that working with a mentor in the states was at least as important as college classes in gaining an understanding of what needs to be done and learning ways of getting things done.
Does the model you like have a way of minimizing the problem of someone inviting a young person to do something (scripture reading, music, etc.) and then, at the last moment, having some well-intentioned but misguided soul tell the young person that he or she isn’t properly dressed, for example?
What is decided is often not as important as how it is decided. My initial impression is that the model you are suggesting would result in some members (young people especially) getting the impression that unless they promote themselves, they will never be part of the decision-making process.
Feel free to answer me privately if you like: r.metzger44@gmail.com
Roger,
You are asking excellent questions.
Having a focus on gift-based ministry has made our congregation different in many ways. You won’t find a young person being criticized for how they are dressed because we are far more interested in them being there and growing in their relationship with God. Also, we’re a casual, come-as-you-are church where you find people dressing in a range of ways. One of our more engaging Sabbath School teachers sometimes wears a shirt with an airbrushed portrait of rock guitarists Jimmy Hendrix on it! But no one cares because of how he challenges us spiritually and intellectually.
It appears we are doing a better than average job of retaining our youth but that is one area where we recognize that we need to improve. Gift-based ministry naturally encourages the youth to be involved, whether in mentoring relationships or in specific ministries.
The model the Apostle Paul gives for the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is the body with greater and lesser parts and where the lesser parts are esteemed because they are essential. When you recognize your own gifts and ministry, you become more respectful of the gifts and ministry in others and that works directly against any temptation to dominate and control. Instead, it promotes an attitude of wanting to be under God’s control.
Roger,
I haven’t forgotten about you and will reply as you requested. I’ve just been really busy with things like getting a book finished and released so I haven’t been able to write the thoughtful answer your request deserves.
In my part of the world the church elects its officers every year.(When I say CHURCH,I mean the body of SDA believers meeting together in one place) The highest office is that of the elder,of which one is designated “first elder”. The pastor is assigned to the church by the local conference or mission, and he is the boss in the church. He chairs all the major committees of the church; and very often he has the last word. In fact, most of the members think it is wrong to go against the ideas or orders of the pastor. The members do not think that the church belongs to them. It belongs to the conference. All that discussion you hold in this forum about responsibility and discretion in paying tithes is anathema here. One’s duty is to pay the tithe and send it to the conference or mission, no matter what they do with it there. In fact if one does not pay tithes,one is not eligible to hold any office in church.
The main activity of the pastor on sabbaths is to preach, and surely, he has a fathful bunch of quiet listeners. Can you imagine a small group of older members sitting there for thirty or more years, sabbath after sabbath, hearing some sermons for the tenth or twentieth time!? Sometimes I long for some discussion; but that is not likely to happen, as some of the views expressed in a discussion might shake the faith of some simple,newborn babe.
How effectively is that church structure functioning to accomplish the command of Jesus to create new believers? How much has your church grown over the past year? Five years? Ten years?
The basic explanation of authority and service is circular and meaningless in this article.
Authority means, just that “authority” and “rule” means to rule.
Jesus was the greatest servant and this in no way demeans or undermines the fact that He rules by authority. Many may abuse this authority, but abuse of authority does not negate the principle of authority.
A lot of double talk in the church today to by pass and circumvent clear bible mandates that need no special explanation.
I submit the following for your consideration by the authority of Jesus Christ:
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
I submit the following for your consideration by the authority of the Apostle Paul:
“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
True servant-leaders do not demand respect, they earn respect. They lead with the power of persuasion, not the power of coercion.
“True servant-leaders do not demand respect, they earn respect. They lead with the power of persuasion, not the power of coercion.”
God demands respect and if you refuse to accept His authority He will certainly destroy those who attack His kingdom and government.
For those of us who believe, it is no problem as we willingly subject ourselves to His authority to rule and reign. But no matter how you cut it, authority is just that, authority.
He persuades if He can. But if He can’t, the result is final and non-negotiable. So, servant leaders may well “earn” respect. But it is coupled with authority just as a parent demands respect and obedience of their children, and if not, they punish them.
As I said, the article is “word games” to circumvent the idea of authority delegated and invested in church leaders to rule the church and the members to obey their authority.
Nathaniel Moore on December 4, 2015 at 6:08 pm said: “In my part of the world the church elects its officers every year. The pastor is assigned to the church by the local conference or mission, and he is the boss in the church. He chairs all the major committees of the church; and very often he has the last word. In fact, most of the members think it is wrong to go against the ideas or orders of the pastor. The members do not think that the church belongs to them. It belongs to the conference.”
Pastoral leadership and Conference leadership, as presently designed and managed, is the greatest obstacle to church growth in the Adventist church today.
Brother Moore this is the reality in most of the Adventist churches that are dying or stagnating today. You have revealed the problem wisely and eloquently. A Church Family is NOT a Club. It is a TEAM. Therefore, Membership has less to do with rights and more to do with responsibilities. In a natural family, children will not mature if they take a ‘club member’ mentality. Maturing children will begin to own their family, participate in family challenges, contribute to the function of the home, and stick with their family even during difficult moments.
That kind of freedom seems to be exciting and life-giving, but it is definitely not for the faint of heart, nor for those who subscribe to the “this is the most biblical form” mentality. Again, I think it is MOST biblical to do whatever the church needs.
Forgive my failure to find new ways to say this but it still seems to me that the entire question of HOW a religious organization operates boils down to one thing: the question of whether an organization (local, regional, national or international) IS the church.
It seems to me that the biblical concept is that believers are the church. The church may be organized (I believe it should be organized) but no organization of the church IS the church. Believers are the church.
In the context of that concept, it then becomes possible for officers (I’m still comfortable with that word) of the organization to see themselves, not as controlling but as serving.
How about we start by every member of any conference that has created “job descriptions” for local officers sending a letter of protest to the conference office explaining that being elected to a position or having a title doesn’t make ANY layman an unpaid employee of the conference.
There is noting wrong with a conference facilitating “sharing” of resources (for the building of new church buildings, for example. But that is only true IF OR WHERE the “shared” funds are not used for the purpose of making decisions at the conference level that should be made at the local level. When or where that occurs, we have a moral obligation to decline to participate.
Yes, indeed, Roger.
I’m sorry, but does the Church not belong to CHRIST? Is it not part of HIS BODY. Did HE not take the responsibility and Shed the Blood to make our way? HE asked the FATHER if there was another way; but did not have such freedom. Love replaces freedom with responsibility. You preach responsibility, but then attempt to replace it with “freedom”?
Your contention is that a non-biblical club is better? The BIBLE is always better; it is our Creed. You are nothing more than the prodigy of such failure of responsibility; wishing to continue. You are the resultant of society tossing out the BIBLE; yet you did not stand and take responsibility along the way. You did not raise your voice then; nor now.
This is definitely not for the faint of heart, because anyone following their heart is foolish; by definition. Yes we are to build a strong house upon the strongest Rock. The gate is straight and narrow; there is no freedom if we belong to HIM. There is only HIS will; a TEAM of ONE.
If the Church is growing, but sets of churches are failing; should we not look at those individual sets? If the Church is following the BIBLE, but the individual failing sets are not; should we not look there?
Maybe we just raised a bunch of arrogant, ignorant, rebellious children who have never done anything; unable to understand, well less take the responsibilities, while others are forced into commanded responsibilities to rebuke the failures. Sounds like freedom to me!
Yes, Charity, the church is the Body of Christ.
When it comes to following the Holy Spirit and following one’s heart, it is truly loving to realize that our bodies themselves are the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the temple by definition being sanctified by the arrival of God? Does the Holy Spirit not live, if you will, in our heart? So are we not following the Holy Spirit when we are following our heart upon having accepted into our heart Jesus as our savior present in the form of the Comforter whom Jesus promised to send to us each?
Imagine the congregation where this experience takes priority over biblical theology that is attempted to be imposed by individuals representing forces outside of the congregation. The only chaos that will result is outside of the congregation, is it not? It doesn’t have to result, of course, if the supporting organization is seeking the will of the Holy Spirit as mediated directly through the hearts of members in congregations across the world, as was the case in Acts 15.
Acts 15:
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Yes it would be good to have congregations where the Holy Spirit has purified hearts, the Church would be growing leaps and bounds; but instead we have chaos, inside. Why is that? Why do we tempt GOD with private little yokes; only hindering ourselves? Do we not think we are smarter than HE in such? Are we?
Acts 15 also has the solution:
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
How has my church grown within recent years? Relatively fast over the last one hundred years.
We live on an island with a population of about 60,000. Nearly everyone is a christian; but every one in five is either an SDA, was an SDA,or had some active association with SDAism. Active attendance over the last twenty-five years has been about the same, so that simply observing attendance at church every week will not give the correct idea of the size of the membership. Many members do not attend church regularly. In fact, many people do not continue attendance some weeks after their baptism.
What is note worthy about my church, is that it has spawned at least five other churches in the neighbourhood,so that some of its original members find membership in some of these neighbouring younger churches. Here church leadership is largely authoritarian. Not only do the members accept it; but they encourage it by regarding the pastor as a super person: the embodyment of the authority of the conference or mission. There are some members who would like to make the situation more democratic,but the regard for what some call”authority” makes success a distant possibility.
How wonderful it is when the church has leaders who are empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit!
We need to esteem those who are empowered by the Holy Spirit, not those who merely hold an office in the church. Jesus spoke of that second group as having a form of godliness but none of the power and warned us to stay away from them.
Brethren,so many of the comments inn this forum refer to the leadership of the Spirit, the empowerment of the Spirit, the guidance of the Spirit,etc. How can we know for sure that the Holy Spirit is guiding in any situation? Some commentators are suggesting that some others are speaking from their heads,instead from the guidance of the Spirit. All of us speak from our heads; but how can anyone prove that the Spirit of God is not guiding our thoughts? How does the Spirit work to inspire any of us? If there are differences of opinion,is that proof that the Spirit is not leading some?
Note this line of inquiry. During the last GC session, the matter of Women’s Ordination was being discussed. There was much praying and supplication for the guidance of the Spirit. The vote was taken, and there was a 60%/40% split. Who was the Spirit guiding, and who acted off the dictates of their own minds? And even now, after the vote,blame is being hurled from both sides of the decision. What role did the Spirit play in this decision? The same argument can be applied to the election of the President and other officers of the GC. How is the Holy Spirit operating in all these circumstances? And how do we rightly treat the outcome of senarios like these?
Let me have your wisdom, and the evidence of the Spirit’s control of your minds. What implication does your reply have for our judgement of the words and actions of others?
Nathaniel, et al,
In churches–as in families–what is decided is often not as important as how it is decided. In an hierarchical model, any disagreement at any level is referred to a supposedly “higher” level for resolution.
In the servant-leader model, each Christian has as much spiritual authority as any other. That doesn’t mean that we all have the same level of knowledge or experience but it does mean that even those with decades of personal Bible study and experience in leadership roles and in evangelism/missionary work don’t assume the role of telling others what to believe and what to do (or how to do it).
Let’s suppose, for example, that there is a disagreement among members of the congregation of which my wife and I have been members for the last seven years. If we vote on it and the outcome of the vote isn’t what my wife and I would have preferred, rather than oppose the person or persons who are charged with implementing the decision, we can choose to work with them (to the extent that doing so doesn’t violate our convictions) while continuing to teach the principles that underlie our preference.
Despair occurs when people with spiritual insights can expect the same officers to hold the same offices several years in a row.
If you want to change that, encourage leaders to mentor young people so they become eligible to hold servant-leadership positions. (To be continued.)
Nathaniel, et al, (continued)
I have sometimes been elected to serve as an assistant to an officer of a local congregation. I was glad to serve in that capacity.
When I have been asked to take the primary responsibility for a leadership role, I have sometimes declined. Usually I have answered that I would accept on condition that I have an elected assistant–preferably a young person–who could “learn by doing” in the hope that the assistant could assume to primary responsibility for that role in the next election cycle. In many cases, a young person who has not previously had such responsibility might benefit from having and older, more experienced “assistant”.
People who crave position in order to tell other people what to do are not eligible to hold any elected office.
Each of us has a responsibility to elect conference officers who understand that the same principle applies to pastors. In more than five decades of “voting” membership in this denomination, I have never participated in electing anyone as a delegate to the local conference.
Now try to imagine a young person who has enough spiritual insight to realize that pastors shouldn’t be dogmatic and controlling but sees those characteristics displayed by one or more pastors. Imagine how discouraged the young person is likely to become if he sees no possibility of ever being involved in changing that model of operation.
Nathaniel, Roger M. has given wise responses to your good questions. His ideas for mentoring younger persons into church leadership roles is one of my favorites.
My sadness with these good ideas is that iin many of our churches there exists a preference for the status-quo and a resistance to change that is formidable.
At the last business meeting of the church no one was taking any minutes and no questions from members allowed unless a current church elder asked one. No one did. The “meeting” adjourned after an hour of devotionals, platitudes, and meandering routine departmental promotions. None of this belonged at a church business meeting. Not one person attending was under 50 years old. Only 2% of church members attended…sad?!
“God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority.”—9T 261
Church Manual, 1st chapter titled ‘Why a Church Manual?’, page 18 paragraph 8:
The standards and practices of the Church are based upon the principles of the Holy Scriptures. These principles, underscored by the Spirit of Prophecy, are set forth in this Church Manual. They are to be followed in all matters pertaining to the administration and operation of local churches. The Church Manual also defines the relationship that exists between the local congregation and the conference or other entities of Seventh-day Adventist denominational organization. No attempt should be made to set up standards of membership or to make, or attempt to enforce, rules or regulations for local church operations that are contrary to these decisions adopted by the GENERAL CONFERENCE IN SESSION and that are set forth in this Church Manual
Please do not let anyone, including leadership or this author, tell you exactly what the manual says.
The church officer election process comes from chapter 9. Chapter 8 shows Elders have more responsibilities than authority (ie servants) and even then only during their term. Pastors also have less authority than typically believed. And if the instructions of chapter 7 entitled “Discipline” are followed, then Matthew 18:15-17 isn’t contradicted.
Please read it and mark all the places your…
Based on how I tend to vote on the issues, members of the church boards on which I have served have generally considered me to be “conservative”. But just because a person opposes changes doesn’t necessarily mean that he is dedicated to tradition. Sometimes there is a better reason.
I wasn’t a member of the board the year our congregation was asked, one sabbath morning, to take turns going to the front of the auditorium to “receive communion”.
If that departure from what is customary in most of the Adventist congregations in North America had been voted by the board and if I had been a board member that year, I would have voted against it–not because I am a “traditionalist” but because I see it as a violation of the instruction to “tarry one for another”. (I Cor. 11:33)
The first time I read the Church Manual, I was in my teens (1950s). I assumed it was a collection of information about what was customary among Adventists worldwide. My parents had taught me that Adventists base NO practice on tradition.
To whatever extent others may have taken the Church Manual as an indication that our denomination is and ought to be hierarchical, I didn’t understand it that way.
Years later that I learned that some of the people who DID take it as “instruction” from the General Conference officers were loud and fierce in opposition to the percieved implication of hierarchy.
Thank you, Brethren for your advice and suggestions, especially the idea of mentoring the youth, preparing them for responsible participation in church activities. The church needs that approach if it must keep the younger ones in its fellowship.
I should like to get your views on the operation of the Holy Spirit in our decision making. How really does the Spirit teach and guide and control in the affairs of the church? When there is a difference of opinion, does it mean that the Spirit is not leading? As in the decision arrived at in the matter of Women Ordination at the GC session, or in the choice of officers of the GC. I’ll appreciate some comments on this important subject.
In referring to the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit there is NO distinction made to gender. The work and blessings of the Holy Spirit are for all, no distinctions or exceptions are ever made. Why would any part of the trinity make any exception or distinction because of gender?
John 14:26, “These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”
Luke 12:12, “for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.”
Rom. 8:26, “And in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.”
Matt. 4:1, “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.”
John 6:63, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”
Acts 2:4, “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.”
Matt. 12:32, “And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come.”
All are treated equally by the Holy Spirit.
So was this your motive all along Sam?
“Why would any part of the trinity make any exception or distinction because of gender?”. I think you will have to ask HIM SAM.
“All are treated equally by the Holy Spirit.” Where did you derive this from?
John 3:
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Is free choice discriminatory?
“Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak.” (Matthew 26:41 and Mark 14:38)
Is the flesh being weak discriminatory? The Spirit is ready.
Acts 2 (from Joel):
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
HE will pour out the Spirit upon all flesh though. That is truth.
John 16:13 “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”
Do you not attempt to speak of yourself…
Charity,
So the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth, but you are the authority who will tell us what that truth is and whether or not it is the Holy Spirit telling us. OK, we hear you.
John 4:
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Those in Spirit give praise to the FATHER, as HE seeketh; not as others seek.
Luke 10:
18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.
We are happy HIS Will be done and our names are written in heaven. We do not speak within any motive but HIS. We do not speak of ourselves or ideologies; we speak in Love and feeble attempt to lead others to HIM.
We appreciate teaching (and rebuke) from those in the Spirit. It weighs our conviction, brings us into remembrance and out of the flesh. That is the difference in those in the responsibility and commanded to Love; the understanding of Love.
Hear! Hear! The one who loves to throw Bible verses at others but never explains their application has once again sounded-off.
Roger Metzger,
The Church Manual isn’t based on tradition. They are standards and practices based upon “the principles of the Holy Scriptures.”
It sounds like you don’t think our denomination is hiearchical in any way. The Bible is full of hierarchical church structures. The author of this article is against practiced hierarchical structure, but not against any hierarchy. Without a hierarchy of governance we will fall to pieces and become divided. That is what is happening because Congregations, Conferences, Unions, and Divisions think it is OK to ignore the Church Manual and the General Conference Session and Office. From top to bottom we hear murmurings that can’t be restrained because nobody is left with the authority that was mandated by God.
I’m curious, why were some of those that “take it as “instruction” from the General Conference officers” also “loud and fierce in opposition to the percieved implication of hierarchy”? In any case even though that happens it is irrelevant as those that don’t take the Church Manual as instruction will, at the least, just as often be loud and fierce in opposition to the perceived implication of hierarchy. For instance the Women’s Ordination that the General Conference disallows, and is also disallowed by the recorded votes of the World Church representatives we *all* elected. Yet some of those for women’s ordination are more than loud and fierce, they rebel by ignoring authority. Consitency dictates we now…
Community,
It incorporates a lot of tradition. The problem is that a lot of people in the church think so “inside the box” that they don’t recognize it as general guidance instead of specific requirements. Viewing it as requirements has severely harmed many congregations because they have become more focused on measuring how well they are obeying what they see as the rules instead of following the guidance of the Holy Spirit in specific matters.
My church has been richly blessed by viewing the Church Manual as a conceptual guide instead of a rule book on a number of matters. To avoid the dysfunction we saw in other congregations, when we planted our church we divided the work of the church board into three teams: the Spiritual Focus team is chaired by the head elder and members composed of ministry team leaders; the Administrative Team being chaired by the head deacon and is composed primarily of deacons/deaconesses. The Admin Team controls the budget and manages the facility where SF Team manages ministries. Instead of a Nominating Committee, we have a Connections Team that functions as needed instead of once a year. The Conference supports us in this and actually encourages other churches to consider our model because they see how well it works. I have spent six dedades in the church and have never seen or heard of a church with leadership that functions so smoothly.
William Noel,
From the Church Manual, Chapter 1 Why a Church Manual?, Section: Authority and Function of the Church Manual
The Church Manual has existed in its current format since 1932. It describes the operation and functions of local churches and their relationship to denominational structures in which they hold membership. The Church Manual also expresses the Church’s understanding of Christian life and church governance and discipline based on biblical principles and the authority of duly assembled General Conference sessions. “God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority.”—9T 261.
The Church Manual is divided into two types of material. The content
of each chapter is of worldwide value and is applicable to every church organization,congregation, and member. Recognizing the need for variations
in some sections, additional explanatory material, presented as guidance and examples, appears as notes at the end of the Church Manual.
—
Yes there is general guidance, but it’s located at the end of the Church Manual. I’m very much aware that conferences also see all of it as general guidance. Congregations and organizations offend me by not obeying the manual. It is not overly restrictive and prevents abuse.
The Jews at Jesus’s 1st coming also had a problem listening to prophets. They weren’t prepared for Jesus and neither will anyone who doesn’t listen…
Community,
OK, so how’s your allegiance to tradition doing at growing your church? What percentage of the members actually attend on an average Sabbath? How many are actively involved in ministries that grow the members and outreach that creates new members? You’ve given us a whole lot of theory and supposed knowledge about how things are supposed to be done, so how’s it doing? What are the results in your church?
As for my church, it’s healthy and growing. A big reason why we’re healthy and growing is we followed the guidance of the Holy Spirit and left behind some of the “guidance” in the Church Manual that you seem to think is imperative.
“For instance the Women’s Ordination that the General Conference disallows, and is also disallowed by the recorded votes of the World Church representatives we *all* elected.”
There is no instance where Women’s Ordination has been “disallowed”. The failure of a motion to pass means simply no action whatsoever has been taken.
The official policy of the SdA church, taken at the 1902 General Conference required Conferences to select persons for ordination and then submit the lists to the local Union for approval. Neither the Division nor the General Conference has a voice in the decision. This policy has never been changed.
If anyone knows of any action since 1902 that changed this policy please give me the reference to the official action. This is simply a change in policy made secretly by someone or some group high in the hierarchy without vote or minutes, and it is a shame on our church.
… ignore Matthew 18:15-20.
I meant to fit that all in one post, but for some reason on my last two posts there are about 25 characters less available than the “characters available” field has said.
Slight correction to my last sentence. I meant that in reference to the church decision in Matthew 18:17. People could just ignore the church’s decision and they effectively wouldn’t be any different than those who ignore the decision of the members of the world church. Hypocrisy is introduced.
Thank you, brethren for trying to help me resolve some of the problems I face when I try to interface with religious, bible raeding people
William’s reply of Dec.6, 8.09pm to Charity.s offering of Dec.6, 5.51pm is of interest to me. Some people think they know when, how, and to whom the Spirit speaks; but they deny others the same insight. We do not always understand how the Spirit works and intervenes in our affairs, so we must be less judgemental and more understanding of the wiews and actions of others.
A careful reading of the stories in the Acts of the Apostles will illustrate this point which, I’ll attend to a bit later, if the opportunity permits.
Community, et al,
Fred Metzger was raised in the Roman Church. He was about 20 when he first heard of Seventh-day Adventists by attending a series of tent meetings. Over the next twelve months, 1 He became a protestant. 2 In the process, he rejected authoritarian church structure. 3 He joined the SdA organization.
Marion Daily’s mother was an SdA. She read her Sabbath School lessons every week but was content to let others interpret the Bible for her. When Marion attended Union College and EMC, she met SdAs who were thinkers and not merely reflectors of other men’s thoughts. She met Fred at EMC and they were married the next year. They were active SdAs as long as they lived, including holding various elected offices AND they taught their children (I was the eldest) that Christianity is a personal–not an institutional–religion.
In the 16th century, on of the augments against the would-be reformers was that unity depended on submission to central authority.
True Christian unity depends on acknowledging that the Lord may call some Christians to one emphasis and others to another emphasis. Unity within a given denomination depends not on central authority but on being called to a specific emphasis among the many truths about our creator.
The advent movement exists because the Lord called some Christians to emphasize the nature of the kingdom and the manner and purpose of his return. (continued)
Community (continued)
During my tenure on several church boards, I have voted for consistency, not on the basis of a belief that any Christian has any more spiritual authority than any other but because it is easier for an Adventist who moves from one place to another to more quickly become an active part of an new congregation.
An example of a failure in that regard is when we moved to a place where there was no Sabbath School Council. That made it difficult for us to understand how decisions were being made.
I want my neighbors to become adventists in the lowercase sense of the word because people who expect an earthly kingdom will be more easily deceived by the last false messiah. If one or more of my neighbors joins the SdA organization, it should be in the hope of thus being able to more efficiently promote the advent movement.
On the other hand, if one of my neighbors joins because he thinks an organization IS the church, he may be worse off spiritually than he was before he ever heard of the organization. To think of an organization as the church is inconsistent with Romans 11.
Many centuries ago, the Roman Church adopted the word,”Catholic”. It means “universal”. I fear the term “World Church” in reference to our organization is perilously close to making a similar implication. I was a voting member for several decades before I ever saw that phrase used in that way. It makes my blood run cold.
Roger Metzger,
Where in the Church Manual does it say that the “organization IS the church”?
What is it in the church manual that would contradict this other thing you wrote? “True Christian unity depends on acknowledging that the Lord may call some Christians to one emphasis and others to another emphasis.”
The central authority of the Catholic church is on a whole different level.
Community,
The SdA congregation of which my wife and I are members meets 30+ miles from our house and we are not likely to have the wherewithal to make the trip again before we move in mid-January to Dover-Foxcroft, Maine.
Last sabbath, an octogenarian friend of ours asked whether I knew anything about the church in Dover-Foxcroft.
I told her I would attempt to answer two questions: The one she was asking and the one she thought she was asking.
The church in Dover-Foxcroft includes Congregationalists, Baptists, Nazarenes and other Christians–which is to say that the church in Dover-Foxcroft includes all of the Christians in the vicinity of Dover-Foxcroft.
The question she thought she was asking was about Adventists in Dover-Foxcroft. At this point, I don’t know of an Adventist church building in Dover-Foxcroft.
Are all of the Congregationalists in Dover-Foxcroft Christians? I doubt it. Are all of the Baptists Christians? I don’t know. Are all of the Nazarenes Christians? I don’t know. I do plan, however, to treat them as Christians until or unless I discover that they aren’t. Unless the Lord gives me a special revelation about a person, I doubt that I will know before Jesus returns.
So far, the only professed Christians I have decided aren’t really Christians are those who don’t admit to being sinners.
Regardless of what the SdA Church Manual says about it, many Adventists think and speak of an organization as “the church”. (To be…
William Noel on December 7, 2015 at 11:42 am said: “Community,OK, so how’s your allegiance to tradition doing at growing your church?… You’ve given us a whole lot of theory and supposed knowledge about how things are supposed to be done, so how’s it doing?”
So here’s a “new idea” that I owe my friends from the Christian Church and Calvary church, Disciples Church, Fellowships.
I happen to live in Southern/Southeastern, California where there are a lot of very large SDA churches where many members are vegetating and desiring to get more involved. This includes many young people and some retired people who can’t afford to go overseas for mission service. The idea is simple, it is to have smaller churches partner with larger churches in creative ways with positive results. The challenges of small-church ministry sometimes force pastors to realize they need outside help.
Partnering with smaller churches can bring us closer as a church and help us all achieve spiritual, numerical, and financial health.
Why would a smaller church and a larger church want to partner? What are the benefits of such partnerships? In a smaller church, budget and lack of people limits the ability to have a full complement of ministry. In smaller churches, pastors often try to do the majority of ministry because they may not have people to fill key roles. With the synergy of the partnership with a larger church, the smaller church can have a wider range of ministry.
What do you all…
Community, (continued)
In answer to the question, Are Seventh-day Adventists Protestant? Arthur S. Maxwell (1896-1970) wrote, “Yes. Like the reformers of the sixteenth century, Seventh-day Adventists believe that every individual may have immediate access to God by prayer–without the intervention of any priest, saint, or other ecclesiastical functionary.
“They believe that their Church constitutes the nucleus of a twentieth-century Reformation, a world-wide revival of New Testament Christianity.”
That is a far cry from saying that the SdA Church is the remnant church of Bible prophecy. For one thing, the references in Rev. 12:17 and 14:12 are to those (believers) who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. My Baptist brother may understand the commandments differently than I do but I dare not be so arrogant as to think or say that I keep the commandment and he does not. The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (all lowercase)–not a reference to a set of books that was once published under the title “Spirit of Prophecy”.
Have you ever served as a delegate to an SdA conference? I haven’t. Have you ever helped elect a delegate? I haven’t. In theory, SdA laity are “represented, directly or indirectly” when the General Conference of SdA is in session.
In actual practice, how is “The central authority of the Catholic church () on a whole different level”?
Sam,
The “new idea” you mentioned is worthy of some attention. In our experience, however, the larger congregations in our denomination have more people with college degrees (I don’t have one, by the way)–which may be why larger congregations tend to be more protestant. The people elected to church offices in smaller congregations seem more inclined to think the way LDS do, namely, that spiritual authority is vested in the officers of an organization and dispensed through “ordination”.
My dad only took a few post-grammar school classes but he read his Bible and at least one other book or magazine or newspaper every day. He studied for himself and thought for himself. He held elected church offices everywhere (or nearly everywhere) he lived. About 25 years after we moved away from one small town, the elders were still doing what they (except my dad) had done when we lived there–reading from the Review on those sabbaths when a minister wasn’t available.
One SdA member said, “Adventists are like Mormons except that Mormons follow Joseph Smith and Adventists follow Ellen White.” Many less-educated SdA don’t comprehend our denomination differently than that. And I didn’t realize it until 2008 but many don’t even think our denomination is protestant.
Where pastors of small congregations prefer to encourage that way of thinking, how can larger congregations help the smaller ones?
Roger, thanks for your comment. In one area I do wish we were more like our Mormon friends. The concept of non-paid clergy would free up so many dollars and focus our policies more in line with the real needs of the communities we serve. Lay pastors, lay members who don’t get paid, this will really bring about some major changes in our church and more personal involvement.
Years ago we used to have a part of the Sabbath service as Personal Ministries time. One of our older members suggested this at a planning meeting and he was immediately shut down as being “old fashioned”.
Both Roman Catholics and Mormons attend the congregations in their own parish while Adventists in cities with several congregations may attend any they wish.
Practicing Catholics go to confession and mass weekly and may or may not socialize with others there. Many people, including some Adventists, do not believe Catholics are Christians, revealing the church has failed in educating members on the history of Christianity. Too many only know what was written by EGW.
Adventists have adopted the ecclesiastical organization of Catholics but little else. In many other ways, SdA’s are much like Southern Baptists: strict lifestyles and no WO.
Mormons also get maximum use of their church building which may house two or more congregations, meeting at different times. When members move, they may be in another parish and worship in a different building.
Sam, here is where the pavement hits the road. Do you not desire to create interference of influence into GOD’s Will and those Called? Did you wish to assume all of those responsibilities also; since the contention is that you are smarter than HE?
Since you instigate; are you going to help William and like others? Much more than rebellious children have been showing through; and they have no one to help them. Would the true meaning of Love not be to correct that which you helped create and inspire?
Should his pastor be responsible to help? She is ill prepared to understand, well less handle such situation; part of the problem, not the solution. Do you have experience and prepared to deal with such? Obviously not, since you propose to place those protected on the front lines. I suggest you take someone of absolute conviction along to protect you.
We are all HIS employees; bought and paid for in Blood. The commanded strength of the Church flows both ways; the beacon to those entering and the charity flowing out. All created by those of One Body; HIS.
You were commanded to Love as CHRIST; did you not learn from that? Are you just drawn to the cause or does HIS plan scare you? If you are scared, why would you keep digging holes of ideologies for others to fall in? Would this not perpetuate the problem; only creating more fear? Maybe it is time to stand up and do your job; I cannot remove focus from protecting others in this difficult time.
Sam,
Our parents owned and read many EGW books. They encouraged me to do the same. I think our parents had read the book, Education, to me twice by the time I was in my teens. In addition to reading that students should be taught to be thinkers and not merely reflectors of other men’s thoughts, my dad personally encouraged me to do that. My parents didn’t assume that everything Ellen White ever wrote to an individual in the nineteenth century applied to every Adventist in the late 20th century.
That contrasts with an oft-quoted LDS priesthood teacher who said, “When the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done.”
There is nothing “wrong” with quoting Ellen White. There are some things she said better than I ever could. But the WAY some pastors quote her encourages some members to think Adventists should “follow” Ellen White in the same WAY that LDS follow a modern prophet.
Where pastors of small congregations prefer to encourage that way of thinking, how can larger congregations help the smaller ones?
Sam,
I’m not necessarily opposed to the practice of “pastors” with college degrees being “assigned” by conference officers but only if they are assigned to help the laity. Not if they are paid to tell the laity what to believe and what to do. In small congregations, local elders often assume that same method of operation. Maybe, now that communication is vastly better than it was 100 years ago, elected LAY delegates from all the congregations in a conference should be involved in deciding whom to invite to serve in that conference.
Roger Metzger,
You are never clear enough on what exactly you are saying, so it’s like I’m trying to track a mouse in tall grass.
I apologize in advance in case this is like throwing mud on the “tall grass” but…
My understanding of the doctrine known as “the priesthood of all believers” is based primarily on Exodus 19:6; I Peter 2:9 & Rev. 5:10.
While Jesus was on earth, some of the Hebrews were “broken off” of true Israel because they followed the “leaders” but those who studied the Hebrew Bible for themselves and realized Jesus fulfilled many of the prophecies continued to be part of true Israel. To these were added people who were “gentiles according to the flesh” but who became Israelite by being “born again”–the second time as true Israelites. In other words, it was the believers who constituted the church. Nothing wrong with organization but the organization never was the church.
My parents believed–and I agree–a “company” should not be organized as a congregation until there are multiple LAY members who can do everything that needs to be done except baptize people, act as the clergyman of record for weddings and conduct funerals. Given the present failure of so many people to understand that each believer holds a form of priesthood, we should be moving in the direction of lay members doing even some of the things that have “traditionally” been done by clergy.
Where do you find in scripture that lay members cannot (or should not) either baptize or officiate at a communion service? I’ve been searching for four decades and the only basis for either that I can find is rooted in ancient concepts of clergy as a class of people who are set-apart to exercise authority over believers.
We are a chosen generation in Universal Priesthood (praising HIM, brought out of the darkness and obtaining HIS mercy 1 Peter 2:9-10); but does this complement or override the institution of Public Ministry?
Acts 2:42 “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”
But Paul said he was sent not to Baptize, put to Preach (1 Corinthians 17).
1 Corinthians 10:
15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Communion is part of the Body and in remembrance, 1 Corinthians 11:
17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
We have requirements as in 1 Timothy 3 to elect and those have requirements of office as in 2 Timothy 4; along with responsibilities and penalties 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, Hebrews 13:17, John 20:22-23, Acts 20:27-28…..
Are the risks in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 only compounded; by self assumed of responsibility and risk? Maybe HIS Plan is better?
Where do those verses say anything about believers being prohibited from baptizing, leading in a communion service, etc? There is no “thou shalt not” in those verses, yet you used them as if they did. So, instead of answering my question, you’ve given us another example of twisting scripture into saying things it doesn’t say.
William,
I don’t find anything in scripture to the effect that laity cannot baptize or ordain.
As an example of how strong traditions can be (even among those of us who think our religion should not be based on traditions), you may have unwittingly used language that is extra-biblical, namely the word, “officiate”.
In the SdA congregations of which my parents were and later I was a member, it was customary for the pastor to symbolically break a few of the wafers before handing the serving container to an elder who then handed the container to a deacon who then “distributed” the emblems among the congregation. There would be nothing “wrong” about doing that if it were not that some people have taken that custom as meaning that the pastor has more spiritual authority–or some additional kind of spiritual authority–than the laity.
I have no desire to conduct a communion service when there is a pastor present but if SdA want young people to think of themselves as actually being part of the church instead of merely “adherents”, we might need to consider taking steps away from anything that even gives the wrong impression.
Ellen White may have unwittingly used extra-biblical language (however traditional it may have been) when she wrote that, properly understood, every meal is a “sacrament”.
I’m not “sacramental”, i.e. I don’t consider the Lord’s supper to be a vehicle of God’s grace–only symbolic of it.
Roger,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I’m not alone in not finding a scriptural basis for the traditions many think came from the finger of God and was written in stone.
Another factor I think we need to consider is that that instructions God gave to the church through Ellen White often were moderate and progressive departures from tradition instead of a single, full-distance jump from the traditions of the past. It was easier for people to accept a limited change where a total change might not be as easily embraced. That is why we must be united with the Holy Spirit so we can receive new revelations from God fulfilling His promise to guide us into all truth. We’re not there yet. However, those who argue for strict adherence to their view of the counsel given us more than a century ago are preventing us from drawing still closer to God and receiving the blessings God wants to give us.
In recent years I’ve met a number of people who are part of a Sabbath-keeping movement in the eastern part of the US who are utterly devoted to following scripture and the Holy Spirit. One of the things I find very interesting is how empowered their members feel, part of which comes from being them being the ones who baptize new believers they have brought to God. For them it is a joy that becomes addictive and drives them to want to do more for God. They contrast greatly with those who are constrained by traditional concepts about clergy roles.
Do we not fail in wisdom of approach?
We know that baptism, ordination and communion (as command in remembrance of HIS Body and Blood) all belong to HIM (of course everything belongs to HIM, including our reverence).
We have many individual “thou shalt not’s”; does that make everything else “thou shalt’s” or tradition? Grace creates many requirements in Love thy neighbor and those placed over the flock (1 Timothy 3, 1 Timothy 5, 1 Peter 5…); even in our thoughts. Communion also has individual penalties (1 Corinthians 11); creating additional responsibilities of protection on the Body. Should we not look at our individual ideologies, motives and impressions in and of such Love; in those commanded to watch over us?
In such alternate; did judas not partake and preform? Did those baptized by him need baptized again; no they were baptized by HIM to start with. Maybe you could get satan to baptize, ordain or give communion, but this actually discussed and commanded against; just as personal interpretation, rebellion, individual ideologies and following ones liberal foolish heart. The BIBLE tell and warns us of and in such; along with the results.
In absolute alternate, multitudes have been following HIS PLAN for many, many millennia in conviction; what does any of this have to offer that is greater than sliced bread or have anything to do with HIM? Is it “sacramental”?
When thinking about choosing church leaders wisely, the most critical decision-making begins with choosing the GC President. Unfortunately, the current one could rightfully be called the GC Pope. http://gcpapacy.weebly.com/
His plan? Would you mind telling us what you’re talking about? Be specific.
Here are some points for you to consider. First, in the New Testament there is no clergy class and the priesthood that was limited to the Levites is given to all believers. Second, there is no connection between leadership roles and baptizing new believers or ministering the Lord’s Supper. The foundation for that concept is church traditions that developed after the apostolic church became corrupted and turned-away from God. So, instead of defending the tradition of clergy-only for those things, should we not instead be adopting the model we actually find in scripture?
The Sound Doctrine that has and continues to exist.
Do you wish to create a new classification and call it tradition? Please define the define and prove the value add in such to HIM?
HE in potential appointed twelve and called them friends. I think we would all agree HE had that privilege? The twelve elected replacements and went out ordaining others; actually creating and reiterating requirements for such positions.
Does our voice not count? Does the sum of our voice not count? Are you personally excluded in some fashion? Did the apostolic Church not turn for these very reasons and failures in Doctrine? Does this rebellion not continue in such? Should we not be happy HE died for and makes a place for us? What more would we ask HIM to do?
Charity,
You are making it obvious that you have not studied the history of Christianity. The concept of the clergy as a class separate from the common people dates to the establishment of the church of Rome with records as far back as around 680 AD declaring that only the clergy were permitted to minister the sacraments.
But you didn’t need to know that to see that your claim is without basis. All you really needed was to study the Bible to see that the sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary ended the need for a human priesthood and that there is no instruction from God in the New Testament for the establishment of a clergy class, so any claim that ministers are the only ones who can legitimately baptize new believers or celebrate the Lord’s Supper with other believers is without basis.
You love to cut-and-past Bible verses to try and show how other people are following misconceptions, but apparently you’re not reading much of the Bible, else you would see that the modern role of clergy is based largely on human tradition.
I am sorry William, the BIBLE existed millennia before 680 AD. We have complete text available to all from 350 AD, centuries before. We have remnants and scrolls dating well before that.
Where did you get your theology degree from? We are currently instilling ethics classes, actually covering these issue.
Since when does theology not reference the BIBLE. Theology without the BIBLE; odd concept.
Matthew 28:
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Why did those appointed create the office of Bishop, Elder and Deacon? Who are you preaching?
2 Corinthians 11:
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
So, how does any of that answer my points? You’ve still not shown where scripture tells us to have a clergy class who alone are entitled to baptize or administer the Lord’s Supper.
I’m referring to the pressure that he placed upon the GC delegates to make a decision that accorded with his views. He basically railroaded the anti-ordination vote (and some other votes on the Church Manual). That seems more like popery than presidency.
William, et al,
I do NOT favor change for the sake of change. I Do favor mentoring young people in such a way that they have hope that they will be involved in the decision-making process while they are still in the age group Ellen Harmon, James White, Hiram Edson and O.R.L. Crosier were in 1844. The mentoring should not be in the form of “this is how is must be done” but, “this is how I do it” or “this is how I understand the biblical instruction”.
Officers (both old and young) should be encouraged to suggest any changes they think might be helpful AND always ask the people who have been members of our denomination the longest whether there are good reasons for doing something the way it is customarily done. If the only reason is “that’s the way we have always done it” or “that’s the way we do it here”, that isn’t a “good” reason.
After the young person asks more experienced members for advice, the next step is to ask the board or the Sabbath School Council to vote on it. If there is still no objection other than tradition and if the majority agree, go ahead and try the innovation.
If the pastor’s function is to point out Bible texts that need to be considered before making changes, that is appropriate. If his function is to veto (or table) anything he doesn’t like, that is inappropriate.
Roger,
Neither do I advocate change for the sake of change. However, when you find that something isn’t functioning well, the issue is not whether we should change, but how much change is required to fix the problem and how that change will be made to happen.
To bring this back to the original question of how church leaders are selected, we have a model in scripture of the Holy Spirit giving gifts to people so they will be able to minister with obviously-Divine power that draws people to God. Our highest priority in selecting church leaders should be to first recognize how God has empowered individuals so we can put them to work in the ways God wants them working.
William,
I confess to not subscribing to the idea that a person whom the Lord has called to a particular function or ministry needs us to “put (him) to work in the ways God wants (him) working”. As long as he is willing to be a religious liberty advocate without implying that all Adventists share his views on the subject, he should not be discouraged from working in that context. He should not be “required” to “report” his activities but he should be encouraged to share his experiences.
Should should a person be elected to the position of local religious liberty leader?
Probably. But, in my not-so-humble opinion, that doesn’t mean that he should hold that position election cycle after election cycle, even if it is true that he is the most knowledgeable and most capable religious liberty lay advocate in the local congregation–especially if he thinks he is the most knowledgeable and most capable religious liberty lay advocate in the local congregation.
If he IS elected to that position, someone should be elected to serve as his “assistant”. The experienced religious liberty advocate should mentor the assistant with the goal of the assistant being capable of holding the office of religious liberty leader the next election cycle. In some cases, it would then be appropriate for the more experienced person to serve as the “assistant” to the less experienced person.
Oh dear, I think I pushed Send Comment before I proofread the last sentence. I think I said something IS appropriate when I meant that it isn’t.
During my twenty-five plus years of Adventist pastoral ministry I have worked with dozens of churches across America and around the world. Whether a local body of Christ is vibrant & growing or stagnant & struggling, I have consistently seen a sad reality… volunteer ministry leaders (elders, deacons, teachers, and other key volunteer leaders) are seldom trained, often under-utilized, and frequently discouraged. We abuse our volunteers!
Volunteer leaders rarely receive training in practical biblical leadership, so they are typically unprepared to fulfill their leadership roles in the trenches of real-world ministry. They are often kept at arm’s length by paid pastoral staff, being perceived as “second tier” servants instead of highly valued volunteer of God. As a result, volunteer ministry leaders are often hampered in their roles; and years of practical wisdom and insights are ignored and go unused. Lastly, in their personal walk, volunteer leaders are often discouraged, being ill-equipped for the spiritual battles of life and ministry.
My experience as a Chaplain educator working with volunteers in churches who want to know more about grief ministry and volunteer visitation, indicates that most churches are in desperate need of engaged, wise volunteer leaders. Across America, Adventist churches are increasingly stagnant, declining and failing in the visitation ministry of Christ. Many churches have ineffective or nonexistent lay leadership development.