Time for a Family Meeting
by Dean Waterman
By Dean Waterman, April 15, 2014
I love my church, but just like any family member, I at times get very exasperated with our actions. The latest source of frustration is the expected/unexpected cancellation of the web-series The Record Keeper. By now many of you are probably aware of this series, the recent reluctance of the General Conference to move forward with production and release of the series, and the final press release through ANN this past week to account vaguely the series has been canceled due to “theologically inaccurate matters.”[1]
Hence the source of my frustrations.
It’s 2014. An organization can’t just say they made such a controversial decision for a vague reason, they need to explain carefully, thoroughly, and respectfully why they have a made a decision that not only affects the director and writers of this series, but supporters of this project. Additionally, the series has been viewed by many in pre-release form and has found great acceptance, and even led to 50 baptisms in one church in Maryland, as documented by NAD Ministerial Associate, Dave Gemmell. All of these individuals have been blind-sided by this decision from the General Conference, and countless others will never feel the impact this series has had on so many thus far. To say the series, which has been guided by the hands of the GC, White Estate, and other individuals with influence in the church, is canceled for theological reasons is disingenuous and disrespectful to those who have put so much time into this project. To add further insult, while suspending this project, the General Conference has agreed to “explore the possibility of supporting similar creative outreach projects.” After this decision, and the lack of transparency in making it, I don’t think anyone would believe them.
I am old enough to be raised by parents who demanded obedience and who didn’t quite care for me questioning their authority. When I would ask them why they were demanding I do something, or why a particular decision had been made that I disagreed with, they would respond, “Because I am your parent and I said so.” That was to conclude the argument in our house (which I never quite took as a cue to be quiet) and to leave the distinct impression of who was in charge. I can’t use that same practice on my kids, ages 8 and 12, as they just aren’t buying it anymore. When my wife and I make a decision in our home, we need to explain what brought us to the decision, and what we feel the consequences would be if we had made the decision differently. Our kids don’t agree with it every time (okay, most of the time) and they still dialogue (complain) with us, but in the end they know what we struggled with in making the decision, and why we felt it was in the their best interest to decide as we did. Likewise today our culture and generations want the truth, and they can handle the truth. They might not like our decisions that affect them adversely, but they will respect us more for sharing how we came to that decisions.
I’ve been a part of the Adventist Church for 42 years. I have been a pastor for the church going on 10 years. While the culture in the world has changed, often times it feels the church has not. I am fully convinced the leadership of our church is sincere and desires to serve God to the best of their ability. Where the breakdown comes is when the church functions like 1950 in 2014. It appears tone-deaf at times, which frustrates my generation (Gen-X) and those younger than me. The process of decision making is done in committees, and at glacial speed. Things that seem obvious to the majority of us under 50, like women’s ordination, have required hundreds of hours of meeting time to arrive at conclusions we still generally disagree with and the general population considers outdated reasoning. The top-down model of leadership commissioned over 100 years ago seems very disinterested in what the local congregation and current generations have to say. Yes, there are invites given to young adults to share with church leadership, but the frustration mounts as those who take time to speak feel they were heard, but not listened to. The decision to suspend The Record Keeper series is the latest example of many voices speaking in unison, but church leadership not truly listening to what is being said.
If we are going to make strides as a church in keeping our generations under 50 connected, we need to do a much better job of hearing what they have to say. Conversely, those with passionate thoughts and opinions need to be kind in their conversation and understand the difficulty our leadership faces in trying to keep all people happy, all the time (Thank A. Lincoln).
My final conclusion, and request to our church leadership, is this: please take time to explain this decision about The Record Keeper. It’s time for a “family meeting.” Be deliberate, thorough, and transparent. Let us talk back with you in the process so we can dialogue and understand. This complicated, and seemingly unfair decision doesn’t make sense, but you as the leadership can help us make sense of it. If you don’t take time, quickly (within a few days would be nice), to share the thought process behind the suspension, you risk credibility with others who want to “think outside of the box,” as they won’t trust you ever again. Worse, and perhaps even more importantly, a generation of our church family will be left out of many other crucial conversations we must have. Either because they were frozen out or they walked out. I love my church family too much to see this be the final result. Like family, you may exasperate me, but I will stand by you through all of it.
[1] https://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2014-04-11/decision-to-suspend-the-record-keeper-comes-with-strong-endorsement-for-creative-outreach/
'To say the series, which has been guided by the hands of the GC, White Estate, and other individuals with influence in the church, is canceled for theological reasons is disingenuous and disrespectful to those who have put so much time into this project.'
Amen Dean! What are these so-called theological reasons?!
Excellent, reasonable suggestion. May I offer just a minor suggestion that the current GC administration functions like the 1930s in 2014. To function like the 1950s would be too progressive for those currently in power at the GC.
They probably thought Steampunk meant the story would use actual 19th-Century Victorian technology – not mere being a clever narrative device to depict modern 'heavenly' technology with a Victorian feel to it. When they discovered this was going to be an actual tv (web) series, they probably freaked, thinking Adventists don't go to the movies, or watch dramas (not even Adventist ones).
Erv,
"To function like the 1950s would be too progressive for those currently in power at the GC."
Dead center on-target!
Maybe what we need in our "family meeting" at the next General Conference session is a rules change with term limits for those in church leadership. Let them serve for a few years with the requirement that they return to pastoral work or teaching afterward for the rest of their term of employment with the church. Maybe also prohibit them from serving in any administrative position above the local conference, too.
Good luck, the SDA Church might seem democratic by religious standards, and we are certainly no monarchy like the RC Church. However, we are about as democratic as the Chineese communist party.
They also have local elections, they too have factions, formal and informal groupins. But they aren't really democratic, because the average Chineese citizens has absolutely no say about who leads the country, or the top decisions of the country.
So I'll doubt those who lead the GC will be changing any rules to limit their own power.
From a purely political science perspective, Adventist church polity–in how it actually functions–is very similar to those of "people's democracies" such as the current regime in China and the old Soviet Union. For example, the USSR main newspaper was called "Pravda" which I have been told means in Russian, "Truth."
If there were a strong popular belief in the positions mentioned above by William, why not a motion from the floor, at GC, with a quick secondth??
If there were a strong popular belief in the positions mentioned above by William, why not a motion from the floor, at GC, with a quick secondth??
Mr. Calahan offers an excellent idea. However, (1) which delegate would will be willing to do that? (2) Are you sure that delegate will be recognized by the chair who controls the agenda? (3) which delegate would be willing to say "second" loud enough to be heard. (4) How are you going to be sure that the motion will not be ruled out of order by the chair. (5) How will you counter the "helpful" suggestion of the chair that the motion would be referred to some administrative committee which, of course, will be the kiss of death to the motion. (6) etc., etc. The people running the GC session are a skillful lot.
The Adventist church uses a representative form of electoral process and governance which is often mistaken for democracy due to some common procedural similarities. I have found that secular democracy itself isn't the power of the people but rather the votes of the people being ceded as proxy to a minority in power to do as they please. This would include the capitalist kind which every now and then when the bubble bursts will administer a socialist injection to pacify the masses.
The Adventist Church at GC level is reliable and trustworthy – and quite transparent. Pastor Ted Wilson should be commended for his role as Pastor of the World Church especially in times when our church family has many meeting places outside of church structures and family members who are seeking to tear our family values down just to appease their groupthink and worldviews. A culture of open disrespect for the authority of the GC has become (and is becoming more and more) prevalent especially in some circles of Adventism which is undoubtedly rather evident in these said circles.
Trevor, you are right about the clear defects in secular democracy. It is hardly perfect by the simple fact you need a few billion dollars to get elected President. But at least citizens get to vote for the President directly, or even choose their own representatives directly.
Dr Taylor's analysis above, comparing the SDA polity to old communist regimes such as the USSR is undoubtedly correct.
Countering the issue by saying the GC is reliable and trustworthy is not the issue. Until very recently, conservatives felt the GC was out of control and not very transparrent or trustworthy. So the issue isn't a liberal vs conservative one, but one of administration.
Saying we should all show respect for the GC is not the issue either. Respect is earned. Again, until very recently, it was conservatives who had no respect for the GC. Just look at all the conservative 'independent ministries' out there – from Hartland College to GYC – all started as independent 'protest' movements and organisations against the GC.
Recognizing the tools that the GC constituency meeting Chairman uses to ignore, deny, squelch a motion from the floor, the GC doesn't want to table, the motion from the floor must be well planned in advance. As mentioned it must be a popular
position that stands a chance of being voted in by the constituency , otherwise it would be futile, and a waste of time. If the theme is popular, then the best mechanics of how to have it heard, for a certainty, is to formulate how the planned motion would be made, by whom, and an insistence that having $$millions of dollars to hold this meeting, a few minutes more to hear a motion of great interest to all members should be tabled, without a concrete "N O", from the Chair, followed by a storm of protest until the Chairman calls for HELP.
Recognizing the tools that the GC constituency meeting Chairman uses to ignore, deny, squelch a motion from the floor, the GC doesn't want to table, the motion from the floor must be well planned in advance. As mentioned it must be a popular
position that stands a chance of being voted in by the constituency , otherwise it would be futile, and a waste of time. If the theme is popular, then the best mechanics of how to have it heard, for a certainty, is to formulate how the planned motion would be made, by whom, and an insistence that having $$millions of dollars to hold this meeting, a few minutes more to hear a motion of great interest to all members should be tabled, without a concrete "N O", from the Chair, followed by a storm of protest until the Chairman calls for HELP.
"The Adventist Church at GC level is reliable and trustworthy . . . " I would not dispute this statement except to ask "reliable and trustworthy" to do what and for whom? These are the real questions.
The GC leadership under the previous GC president was relaible and trustworty in terms of exercising power in a responsible manner which was respectful of varying points of view in the church. He was a mature administrator who also was a scholar. He was not a liberal himself, but understood the role of liberals in the church. The current GC president is, in many respects, the opposite of the previous holder of that title and . . .. well, the least said about him the better.
As for the GC now being "quite transparent." That certainly is true since with the existence of Adventist Today and Spectrum, the church administration has a very hard time doing things in the typical "back room" manner. They know that if they try to cover something up, either Adventist Today or Spectrum or both will find out about it and now the internet exists to move that information around the earth is literally seconds. The free press in Adventism has forced church administrators to be "quite transparent.".
RE:"Dr Taylor's analysis above, comparing the SDA polity to old communist regimes such as the USSR is undoubtedly correct." [Mr Ferguson]
———
How so?
Couple of points, but for me it might be easier to compare the SDA Church to today's communist China and today's USA:
Elections:
SDA Church: We elect local delegates to a local session, who appoints a local conference executive, who appoints delegates to Union sessesions, and so forth, going up and up. However, there is no direct election of the GC delegates by individual lay members, nor is there direct election by lay members of who becomes GC President or members of the Executive Committee.
Also in practice, I believe the election of the Conference President will be heavily influenced by the Union President, who usually sits on the Conference nominating committee, thus ensuring a degree of control over elections. Similarly at the GC level, higher offices have disproportionate power over selections.
Even at most local churches, the position of head elder and elders is often heavily entrenched. Even there, there is no open election – as that is seen as 'unChristian' and crass. Instead, there may be an election of Nominating Committee members, who with the Pastor (and often with elders or the head elder) select the next round of Church positions. When the Church as a whole receives the Nominating Committee report, the selection of the positions is in effect a fata comple.
Communist Systems: Contrary to popular belief, they did have elections. However, much like the SDA Church, usually they are only local elections for local delegates. It is then delegates who elect the system above, and so forth and so forth. So like the SDA Church, whilst they have elections, ordinary citizens of the Chineese Communist party don't get to elect the President or executive.
USA: In the United States, ordinary citizens are entitled to vote directly for President (notwithstanding the legal fiction of the Electoral College, but the candidate's name is on the ballot). Similarly, you are entitled to vote directly for members of Congress. A SDA-like system would be if citizens were only entitled to vote in municipal elections, then local mayors voted for State Governors, and State Governors voted for the President.
Separation of Powers:
SDA Church: Effectively no separation of powers. There is no separate judiciary. There is a lesser degree of separation through an element of federalism, with Divisions, Unions and Conferences; however, it is much more difficult for a Conference or Union President to be in open rebellion against a Division or GC President.
Even where there is a temporary rebellion, at a GC Session, the Church can effectively take whatever action it wishes, and there is no constitutional limit. If the actions were against the Church Manual (our de facto constitution), then the GC in Session is empowered to change the Church Manual.
Communist Systems: Again, effectively no separation of powers. The judiciary is not independent but essentially takes it directions from the nation's executive committee. There also is an element of federalism, but a subordinate level of government cannot long survive in open rebellion against the nation's executive. The recent execution for corruption of Bo Shin Li in China, who was an 'Old Guard' who was administrative leader of one of the regions of China, comes to mind here.
USA: In the US, you have a truly independent judiciary, independent Congress and independent federal system. You can and do have courts who overturn Presidential decisions, Congress who is openly hostile to the President, and Governors of States who are openly hostile to the Federal Executive.
Media (4th Estate):
SDA Church: The SDA Church has no official independent media. The closest thing is independent ministries such as AToday (for liberals) or EducateTruth (for conservatives). It would not be inaccurate to say that official SDA media is propaganda (in the sense that is only tells readers what is uplifting, and heavily censors more unsavory stories). The recent GC decision to cut The Record Keeper series is case in point.
Communist Systems: In communist countries, like China, there also isn't an independent media. Again, all news is heavily censored and essentially propaganda.
USA: The USA has a truly independent media (nothwithstanding it is not perfect, as Fox probably shows). Most democracies even have a State-owned by truly independent news media, which despite receiving funds from the State, will actually openly criticise the Government. I doubt you'll ever see that in either the SDA Church or a communist country.
Do I need to go on… I think you get the picture?
And Trevor try to separate the person from the system. Even if you love Ted Wilson, remember, just a few years ago when conservatives were not so much 'on top', there were a lot of similar complaints about the GC being unaccountable. If it were not so, conservative independent ministries from Hartland College to GYC would not have been founded. These conservative ministries thrived precisely because many felt the GC was not transparent, accountable or trustworthy.
Steve
Maybe because I am older and worked for the denomination in an educational institution at the time many of these were coming out, I don't remember some of the "conservative" ministries being founded because they thought the GC was not transparent or accountable. Maybe not trustworthy from their perspective, yes.
Many did not thrive, and those who have are still dependent on rumors, conspiracy theories and strict adherence to certain ideas. .Some have felt they are the "remnant," and do/did what they could to undermine the church.
"Independent Ministries" though is not a negative term, because there are so many that sacrifice, evangelize, help others, and generally build the church up for God's glory.
Yes Ella I wasn't meaning to denigrate all independent ministries. We are on one right now – AToday. My wider point is people like Trevor continually call for absolute loyalty to the GC, and demand projects tow the line to the GC. But ministries like Hartland College (whose founders called the GC apostate) proves beyond doubt that many conservatives have shown something less than loyalty to the GC.
To Mr. Ferguson's excellent analysis, may I just add one small element which has been pointed out by a number of observers of how the Adventist Church functions politically.
This is the critical role in Adventist polity of the Norminating Committee. It is the political component that allows an existing administrative regime to, in most (not all) cases, control who is given what office, i.e., which person gets rewarded for supporting a particular individual or policy..
The core of how the system is controlled is first to control the income, i.e., tithe ("follow the money"). This is why the periodic article in the Adventist Review and elsewhere to exhort the faithful to tithe. And where should they tithe? To the "Storehouse." And where is the Shorehouse? Answer: the Conference.
The second, major element of control is the Nominating Committee all the way from the local conference to the General Conference. It is the prime instrument by which the "right" people are rewarded and the "wrong" people excluded. At all levels of the church, unless there is a overt rebellion, it is not possible to nominate an individual for an office from the floor. One has to go to the Nominating Committee to offer the name of a candidate for an office. It is in that committee which the full weight of church's administrative network can come down on any attempt to open up the system. There are good reasons for this system. It gives the illusion that politics plays no part in how "spiritual" leaders are selected. They are selected by the will of God. Of course, that is a myth, but it projects a myth that the vast majority of Church members will accept. If there is direct open voting for one candidate over another that myth will have a hard time being accepted..
None of these comments mean that those individuals who administer the Adventist Church are "bad" people. Far from it. With very few exceptions (and there are exceptions), these individuals are honest, dedicated people who are doing the best they can working within a system that is more than 100 years old.– and it shows it..
Erv,
I appreciated your concluding point. The system may be far from perfect, but if we ever needed evidence of the power of God still working in the church it may be simply that we have not seen far worse faults and failures among church administrators.
It's the system. Who decides the "system"?
It's time for a family meeting to determine where the family's money is spent.
Or mis-spent by enablers and/or charlatans with a Remnant 3 Angels Fear Message.
There is one, and only one way to attract the attention of the leaders: Let it be known that the tithe is being held in a bank and will only be disbursed when there is transparency of the church's finances. This is guranteed to get their attention if sufficient members feel as strongly about such profligate spending. It is always so easy to spend "other people's money" when it's not your own. All institutions follow that practice.
I would seriously question whether baptisms of persons truly converted were the result of the Record Keeper. How many Bible studies preceded the baptism? In what way did the film convince them to be baptized? Isn't it the Holy Spirit that motivates one to be baptized? How does Gemmel support his claim?
Maranatha
"Even at most local churches, the position of head elder and elders is often heavily entrenched. Even there, there is no open election – as that is seen as 'unChristian' and crass. Instead, there may be an election of Nominating Committee members, who with the Pastor (and often with elders or the head elder) select the next round of Church positions. When the Church as a whole receives the Nominating Committee report, the selection of the positions is in effect a fata comple(sic)."
While I generally agree with what you wrote I don't see an open election as "unChristian and crass." Rather an open election would allow certain persons to prevail because of money, profession, etc. In some cases I have heard reliably that the Pastor said he wanted certain persons to be elders and he was not overly concerned with the rest of the nominations.
Maranatha
That "Truth Seeker" and others who support his version of what the Adventist Church should be doing do not like this project means that the series is something that projects a positive message and thus needs to be supported and distributed as widely as possible.
People, especially certain mindsets, do not like change, and I suppose that is why we call them "conserv"atives. Anything new is upsetting to them, thus, as EGW once said, they keep the church from moving forward.
Obviously this film is directed at the ignored secular western society, and will be opposed by most who do not live in that cultural enviornment. If I had a million dollars, I would remake it.
I think Dean has given us an excellent opinion piece on this. But skip the ageism. We don't have to be under 50 to understand and like the reasonable approach that this video uses.
After all this money and time invested by professionals in and outside the GC, we members need to complain–this is a scandal! The film is not just owned by the GC but by all of us. Failure to release the film is a financial and ethical debacle caused by a few who feel their (unspecified) judgments are more accurate than the professionals who have been making the decisions all along. There is more to it than what we have been told, otherwise changes would be made.
The scandal, if there indeed is one, is that the film was developed at all. And the consternation of those on the "left" because showing of the film has been suspended may be prima facia evidence of the fact that it should be totally eradicated.
Not one jot or tittle of anything theatrical is to be brought into our work. God’s cause is to have a sacred, heavenly mold. Let everything connected with the giving of the message for this time bear the divine impress. Let nothing of a theatrical nature be permitted, for this would spoil the sacredness of the work. {Ev 137.2}
Maranatha
"The film is not just owned by the GC but by all of us." Ella, so the Washington Monument belongs to all of us as well. In theory maybe it's a point but on the practical world it is actually without legal force.
Good judgment has prevailed for the moment at least.
Maranatha
Actually it is. It is there for Americans to visit. Americans of the past paid taxes for it. American taxes go for its upkeep. It belongs to us all.
If anyone believes because he paid taxes he is entitled to say he owns the Washington Monument he is living in a world of fantasy. Any Australian, African or Japanese can visit it without paying a single tax dollar!
The suspension, better the destruction of the Record Keeper, is in order and, no, Ella, you don't own it regardless of how much you have paid in tithe and offerings. If you don't accept this just try to claim the movie!
Maranatha
"If we are going to make strides as a church in keeping our generations under 50 connected, we need to do a much better job of hearing what they have to say. Conversely, those with passionate thoughts and opinions need to be kind in their conversation and understand the difficulty our leadership faces in trying to keep all people happy, all the time (Thank A. Lincoln)."
My good brother, as a church following Scripture it cannot and should not pander to any group whatever its age, ethnicity or gender. Yet that seems to be the gist of your reasoning. Certain ethinics want certain things, feminists agitate for certain issues and on and on we go and where it stops nobody knows. Agendas galore but what says the Bible?
Many agree with the answers found in Scripture but too many wish to sully the responses found in the Bible with modern cultural practices and beliefs that are diametrically opposed to the Bible.
Maranatha
The Apostle Paul faced the same issues as he sought to reach the Gentiles with the gospel. Some have suggested that if the methodology used with the Jews had been strictly applied in the matter of the Asian and European Gentiles, gospel progress would have been slowed significantly.
Those of us who have served as missionaries in various cultures recognize that while the message is universal, the methods of explaining that message and bringing it to bear on a culture will significantly vary from place to place, people to people, time to time. It will be strange indeed if after all these years, we discover that the same pattern fails to apply to the North American continent in the matter of spiritually nurturing new and emerging generations of young people.
The fact is that through the generations, reaching North America with the gospel has benefitted from a number of "new approaches" that have been used to reach various groups of people, in especially effective ways. The idea of building a large boat and plying the Mississippi to reach the recently liberated slaves of the South was certainly a novel and untested concept, but it meshed exceedingly well with the spiritual liberation of a people who had gone through a great cataclysm of Noachian magnitude and was now free at last to select its own religion and live its faith to the full, unconfined by the dictates of their slave- masters and the customs their masters enforced in the matter of spiritual belief and practice.
Yet I fully understand that there seems to be a lurking fear in some Adventist minds that any new and non-tracitional approach to outreach is probably in some way heavily tainted by either satanic or beastly input, probably both. We fail to reflect, in those moments of fear, that those now-well-tested methods of the Apostle Paul were once novel and controversial as well and subjected the Apostle to great criticism by rival leaders of the early Church. Perhaps we can afford to learn from Paul’s experience that the fear of the new and different has hampered the Church for more than 2,000 years, and yet it has always been the pragmatic and innovative that has led the way in initiating effective outreach to unreached subgroups, from Antioch to Thessalonica; from Alaska to New Guinea and everywhere in-between. That this fear should be pronounced in the United States, a land once known as one of the most fearlessly innovative countries in the world, seems ironic indeed. We should not unduly fear new approaches to gospel-sharing; we should rather fear the Dark Master who would have us sink unreleting energy into dated and increasingly ineffective approaches while his forces freely appropriate the best and most contemporary methods of arresting the attention of the people, laughing all the way as he leads the masses to the banks of the inferno….
Truth Seeker:
You said: "as a church following Scripture it cannot and should not pander to any group whatever its age, ethnicity or gender…."
I need to point out that this is incorrect, because that is what evangelism is all about–meeting people where they are. Jesus did it when he used parables that related to His audience. Books have been written about how He based His approach on His audience. We cannot take a message to Africa wrapped in North American terminology, nor can we expect the same sort of evangelism to work the here as it does in Mexico where many were recently baptized.
Secular people are just as loved by God as you or me. We ignore them at our peril in these last days. The same goes for age, women, and differing cultural groups. Don't you care about these people?
I, for one, would encourage "Truth Seeker" to conteinue to post on various topics on the AT blogs. Without the honest expression of his views, we would not be able to contrast and compare the views of past-looking traditionalists and forward-looking progressives. He is at one end of the spectrum and allow many of us the opportunity to read the explicit assumptions and perpectrives of the right wing of the Adventist Church.
Pandering and contextualizing to honestly fit a particular situation without compromising truth are two different matters. I stand by what I originally said.
And, Ella, you did not attempt to refute the admonition of EGW about drama.
God’s chosen messengers are to show the fallacy of spending means needlessly for effect. As they labor with simplicity, humility, and graceful dignity, avoiding everything of a theatrical nature, their work will make a lasting impression for good.{Ev 66.1}
Maranatha
I agree with Erv and would never discourage you from posing on here. I just hope you don't mind seeing another viewpoint. I appreciate yours though can't always understand your perspective. I am sure you are a Bible scholar though and know the Word.
That's interesting about the EGW quote, because I remember putting my response on, but don't see it. I should look at it again, but as I remember its context was related to preachers who overused emotion in their sermons (perhaps like crying??) or delivery that drew attention to themselves and their charisma and talent. This may have even meant the yelling that some do, though I don't think she understood the cultural ramifications of the latter. Most important a preacher shouldn't draw attention to himself but to the message. (He could also do this with showing off his intellectual expertise and talking down to people.)