Who Controls the Church?
by Lawrence Downing
In my previous blog, I addressed the subject of ecclesiology: Who controls the church? As a partial answer to this question, it is legitimate to examine three of the major players in the ecclesial debate: pastors, church administrators and the people in the pew.
The pastor’s influence, in most situations, is limited to the parish she/he serves. The pastor may express views to those in administrative positions, but it is a quiet voice that may or may not be heard. Within the parish, the pastor has considerable influence. To many of our parishioners, we are the face, the heart and the mind of the Adventist church! We represent the church in its proclamation of Gospel of Jesus Christ. The pastor’s real authority rests in her/his ability to persuade people to act. The adage, “You can’t fire volunteers” is the operative mode.
Once we leave the context of the parish, we enter the church administrator’s realm. In an ideal world, church administrators facilitate the mission of the church. They are in office to provide support to the people in the local parish, assure that the routine tasks, such as payroll, insurance and other business matters, are carried out, coordinate programs within a conference or regional area, and monitor the churches within their boundaries. In the real world the ideal is seldom realized.
In the Adventist church, with its four bureaucratic layers, the tasks associated with operating a multi-faceted organization with its numerous churches and institutions are complex and diverse. It is important to acknowledge that church administrators, likely a great majority, are well-meaning, pleasant, caring and responsible individuals. They are the kind of people we welcome round our table and enjoy the opportunity we have to know them. Men and women in administrative positions have a genuine concern for the church and its people. At all administrative levels there are people dedicated to the Christian faith and the ideals of the Adventist church. In private conversation many will acknowledge the problems that confront the Church. They recognize frailties and suggest viable solutions. At they same time they admit how difficult it is to modify the status quo.
By virtue of their office administrators have access to finances that are beyond the reach of the parish minister. They determine how funds are allocated and assign people to various tasks.They decide what ideas are promoted and which ones will be diminished or rejected. Their decisions, when positive and wise, often go unnoticed; when decisions have a negative outcome the internet hums.
Like the pastors, the administrator’s authority over the parish is limited to persuasion. There is more direct control over people within the organization they govern.
The person in the pew is often caught in the middle of the various forces within the church administrative levels. In past times, church members were usually so far out of the loop that what took place in the bureaucratic levels above the local parish had little or no impact. The World Wide Web has dramatically changed the communication process. Many church members keep up on church politics and share ideas and concerns via the Social Media. These communication systems have changed the world forever and nothing will ever be the same.
What influence does the person in the pew have? Much in every way! The person in the pew is the one essential to assure the Adventist church continues to fulfill its mission. The people in the pew are the only sure source of income. They provide the resources that keep the wheels turning and aligned. They volunteer their services and share their wealth. Should they choose to do otherwise the Adventist church will slip into oblivion.
With the above as context, I want to look again at church administrators. What authority do they have? They have the authority to lead! They can take action that will facilitate healing and unity within our church. The following suggestions, I believe, are worth a look:
- Become a facilitator, rather than a blocker.
- Acknowledge that God works through his church on all levels, especially the parish.
- Practice a Servant-Leadership model.
- Do not take the CUC and PUC vote as a personal attack.
- Express praise to God that the Spirit is active within the church.
- Implement justice.
- Place compassion and values above policy.
- Uphold a theology and practice that is consistent with Jesus’ love, mercy and grace.
Should church administrators decide to implement one or more of these options I believe the result would be a calming effect that will counter animosity or fear. Church administrators have opportunity to assure members that each individual, including the one who may take issue with certain church policies, is a child of God and a valued member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Lawrence,
As is typical from you, a spot-on look at how things both are and need to be. Thank you.
Still, I think you overlooked a critical void in our church structure that must be restored if we are to insure that we have the right person in the right job: we have no performance measurement criteria or accountability structure that helps fit people into the right jobs and measures their performance in them. The corporate world lives and dies by performance standards and accountability. In contrast, in the church we trust that a person must be in a position because God wants them there. I believe the church has suffered because of this assumption.
I don’t have to think very long or hard to remember several times that a pastor or conference official was fired or relocated due to complaints that started circulating on the Internet. Unfortunately, those who complain are often more organized than those of a different opinion. In most cases that I have seen the object of complaint was not a poor performer or someone who was acting in a manner unbecoming of a person in their role. Instead, they were high performers whose results caused others to appear mediocre, or their dedication to mission and outreach ran counter to the prevailing attitude of survival and preserving established methods and power structures. The pastor who introduced me to the giftedness of the Holy Spirit and the empowered ministry that has come as a result was driven out of the church by complainers whose power structure was upset by his pointing people to the Holy Spirit for permission instead of the Church Board.
To make church leadership more accountable to the members I propose the following changes:
Probably the most challenging part of making this happen will be writing the performance evaluation criteria so they can be described in as objective a manner as possible. For pastors, I suggest that the primary criteria be how many churches they have planted within the prior two or three years with a zero score meaning loss of employment. Doing this will drive both pastors and churches to review and refresh their commitment to the mission of the church, which is to create new believers and bring them into the fellowship of the church as part of the Kingdom of God. Doing this will drive churches into discovering the absolute necessity of being completely and totally guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit. As a result new ministries will be planted and grow. So another evaluation criteria for a pastor would be the number of new ministries planted and how dependant they are on the Holy Spirit. Doing this will reduce the need for a pastor in that church and free them to devote more time toward planting new churches.
William, some very interesting points and I love the idea of having some positive ideas to change things for the better. In the same spirit, some ideas that have come to me from time-to-time include the following, and which ironically sound innovative but in many ways stem from traditional Adventism:
1. An introduction of a universal missionary gap-year: The Church of LDS (Mormons), run an extremely successful missionary gap-year. I believe the focus isn’t just on attaining new converts, but rather to consolidate the faith of their young people in the denomination. We already do this quite well on an ad hoc basis, but should consider expanding it into a more institutionalized universal programme.
2. A shift to pastoral teams instead of the old '1 church 1 pastor' formula: We all know from experience, and the scriptures themselves attest, that no person has all spiritual gifts. Yet, we sometimes expect our pastors to be spiritual Switz army knives – with a different blade for each occasion. In a large Church or mega church, pastoral teams are easy. However, even across a number of smaller churches, pastoral teams would work well at a district level. Besides, it also gives the congregation a break and further scope for engagement.
3. Expand the notion of ordained ‘ministry’ to include non-theologically trained people – i.e. our ‘clergy’ are not just our ‘traditional’ pastors but a range of full-time Church workers: Not all of our ordained ministers need to be theologians with theology degrees. In the ‘old days’, as I understand it, many of our missionaries sent to far flung lands, principals of our schools, medical carers in our sanatoriums, cole porters, accountant administrators, and a host of others – were ordained as ministers of the Gospel, even though they did not pastor individual congregations.
4. Establish distinct ministerial streams from the outset: It is simply ridiculous to expect all our clergymen to have degrees in theology, to learn Greek and Hebrew etc. Moreover, the current Church structure ends up with Departmental leaders and Presidents who have degrees in theology, but who are running multi-million dollar organisations – and badly!
The Church would be better in returning to the original notion of seminaries or missionaries colleges to prepare our clergy in a more practical manner. In particular, whilst we definitely need some professional scholars with expertise in theology, a large body of clergy would be better off obtaining a Bachelor of Ministry or some other more practical qualification, combined with a different area of more use to the Church. In turn, we could dispense with the notion of the local congregational pastor being the baseline model, and instead recognise a number of distinct ministerial streams:
5. Change our structure of representative democracy towards a jury-system when appointing new members of nominating committees: Our system of democracy is reminiscent of a by-gone era of poor transport and communication technology. Moreover, our current system of appointing people to positions through nominating committees is heavily influenced by ex officio heavy weights, and does involve electioneering despite our policies to the contrary.
As I have commented before, our system of Church governance is more akin to modern Communist China than a Western democracy. Furthermore, as to suggestions that our leaders should choose our leaders, than seems a little self-interested, and I reject the notion that our theologians, administrators and other leaders are more equipped to ‘hear the voice of God’ than the little old deaconess who cleans our Church toilets or the young man who runs a soup kitchen.
Appointing members to our nominating committees through lots, is arguably a much more biblical mode of ‘letting God decide’, and ensures average laymen Church members really do get to have the power. Moreover, a jury system eliminates any prospect of electioneering that might come from a mass popular vote. It also has a strong base in democratic tradition.
A church where our leaders are more professional, and especially trained in administrative leadership, together with a church where more church employees feel validated as performing a vocational calling, rather than just a job, is in my opinion likely to illicit more of the attributes of good leadership Lawrence is suggesting.
Stephen,
Interesting ideas. Solutions come from such creativity so long as there is recognition of a problem of such importance that it creates commitment driving resolution. Unfortunately, I don't sense a corporate realization of need to change.
By the way, I have a brother who is a Mormon and until a move a few years ago was a Stake President. He has expressed to me a couple of times that the missionary years are not as effective as in past decades in terms of either promoting missionary focus in the church or keeping the youth in the church. Apparently they are losing their youth at about the same rate as other churches.
One of our problems is simply getting people to realise that 1) past practices are no longer working effectively; and 2) that we do not have the luxury of spending 5-100 years discussing what the solutions are and whether we want to implement them. A year is a long time in the real world.
Mr. Noel and Mr. Ferguson,
Both of you have presented viable and useful observations. Would that what you suggest could be implemented, even in part! The Adventist church could learn from the health system that carries its name. Compliance, accountability, management, performance, quality and numerous other factors are collected, reviewed and acted upon. A perfect system? Of course not. But there is in place a far more advanced and more effective process than what existis in the local parish or conference.
Change requires a recognition of threat or failure that needs fixed. I do not sense that there is nearly enough general sense of either to motivate any effective effort at change. Until then any effort is doomed to failure by resistance to change and attacks from the blogosphere.
Mr. Noel and Mr. Ferguson,
Both of you have presented viable and useful observations. Would that what you suggest could be implemented, even in part! The Adventist church could learn from the health system that carries its name. Compliance, accountability, management, performance, quality and numerous other factors are collected, reviewed and acted upon. A perfect system? Of course not. But there is in place a far more advanced and more effective process than what existis in the local parish or conference.
Agreed. Many of our church systems were devised at times where there were limited communication and travel – as were our political systems. Things have changed at the local member level, especially through the internet as Lawrence has so rightly noted.
If we believe we are in the last days when 'many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased', then we need to adapt ourselves to that new reality – not fight against it. Things should and I suspect eventually change at management levels as a result as well.
RE: "Do not take the CUC and PUC vote as a personal attack."
—————-
The fact that personal insults and open disrespect is being shown towards GC leaders who haven’t come out in support of the rash actions made by CUC, PUC and their German counterparts speaks for itself. Personal attacks and belligerent remarks, together with the open letters and articles severely belittling the GC leadership and the world church, have been circulated, often singling out President Ted Wilson as public enemy number one. These well-known individuals, some of whom have served and are still serving within the organisational structures of the church have displayed hostility and animosity towards him for no good reason except that he won’t support such hurried shot-gun decisions and has called for calm so that this issue be properly addressed by the relevant church bodies and follow due process.
Worse still, is that this has been done insensitively on open public platforms for all to see which is tantamount to insurrection and an obvious attempt to destabilise the church. To ask them to respectfully accept the rash decisions undertaken by lobbyists who have no regard for church policy, due process and respect for leaders, just adds insult to injury. Cultural Adventism will have to deal with the cautious responses and prudent handling of their demands as the world church would have much reason to be concerned about their hurry (and flurry), especially when they use subversive tactics to achieve their demands.
But I think the fact that I, a layman nobody, can make a comment to you, someone on the other side of the world, over articles and comments that were published on the web outside of the Church's official media control, just illustrates some of Lawrence's points about how the web has changed everything. At a time when the GC organisation is trying to gather more centralised control (remembering the WO kicked off when the GC enforced its view that the NAD, as a division, is only a sub-set of the GC not a separate constitutional body), the average person in the pew is better informed and better able to influence change, illustrates the very different world we have now come to live in.
For the older folk, 3ABN (especially as it is likewise outside the Church's official control) and other Christian cable networks have also revolutionised their knowledge and understanding of what is going on in the Church.
The real question is whether those at the top have really come to grips with the new paradigm. I believe Lawrence's points are all very good as to how leaders should consider reacting in this new time of the end times, where many shall to and fro and knowledge shall be increased.
The problem with Pres Wilson's response to CUC is that it appeared very heavy-handed – it was all about who is the greater in the kingdom of God – and the proof in the puding it did nothing to stop PUC. Rather than talk down the chances of schism, Wilson talked them up, thereby putting gasoline on the flames, but talk of 'grave consequences.'
Likewise as to Lawrence's point about 'implement justice', look at the Pipim fiasco. We now live in a time and place where because of the web and Christian cable TV, church leaders can't simply sweep such incidents under the rug. People from Australia to Azebijan and are watching to ensure justice is done.
I don't think Lawrence's points necessarily have a 'liberal' or 'conservative' spin. They would apply to either type of leader just as much. Like Paul and Daniel, modern leaders need to become savvy to the new paradigmn.
8 years ago, we successfully implemented a governance system in Rocky Mountain Conference, which brought young professionals back to the table, increased participation, focused on mission and held passtors specifically accountable to lead and not just manage or too often referee.
If you haven't read the book Hit the Bulls Eye, I highly recommend it.
But of course three years ago, I was voted out of office. What we were doing was, "not according to the church manual."
And I would clearly state, they are correct, it wasn't, but it was specifically missional, evangelistic, increased participation, externally focused, giving was up, baptisms were taking place.
My argument is that it was simply a contextualized approach to church governance with young professionals in a post modern world. However the church still has a one size fits all approach to a highly diversified world. I have repeatedly thought of writing an article, but also recognize that the church will not embrace such a governance change unless and until, because it will eventually happen, core values are examined and the Spirit is allowed to adapt the spiritual gifts and fruit to fit the locale of the current church. Enough said, for now!
What sort of things was Rocky Mountain Conference doing, which was raddically new, but which others complained was against the Church Manual?
How tragic it is to see tradition and strict adherence to the Church Manual preventing us from doing God's work.
Such change as you describe grows best and endures longest on the local level where you may not have large groups whose blind loyalty to the past prevents them from seeing God at work in the present. I used to attend a church that was dominated by people who always measuring proposals by the Church Manual– not what the CM actually said, but their mangled and selective reading of it. Then we got a new pastor who knew the CM in detail and was quick to refute the inaccurate claims. That had two results: it stimulated those of us who werre tired of being under the thumbs of those who controlled the church with their claims of adherence to the CM and EGW and it hardened opposition to change that eventually led to him being driven to find a position in another conference. But that was not before a group of us accepted his challenge to plant a new congregation. That was almost nine years ago and today Grace Fellowship is an example of ministry innovation and probably the fastest growing church in the conference. Our finances are healthy. We have dreams and are finishing the design for Stage I of a miltil-million dollar building plan that will mature with a K-12 school. We have numerous ministries that are directly based on the guidance and empowerment of the Holy Spirit.
What are we doing differently at Grace Fellowship? In our formative period we did a careful study of everything we were familiar with in "doing church" and asked whether or not it was helping us to grow in God's love and to minister as he desired. Many times the answer was negative, so we sought alternative solutions. The results are numerous. We don't have a church board. Instead we have an administrative team that focuses on business matters and a Spiritual Focus team that cultivates and guides spiritual development. Instead of a Nominating Committee we have a Connections Team that works with people to identify how they have been gifted by the Holy Spirit and to develop that into a ministry. Confirmations to ministry are not for limited periods but for life because the Holy Spirit does not give gifts for limited periods of time and take them back. As a result Grace Fellowship is the most amazing church I've ever attended. I don't just go there to attend church. Instead, each person will tell you they don't just belong to the church, they ARE the church.
Our example and endurance is providing a model for both conference leadership to promote and for other churches to emulate. There are those I do not expect will ever change because of their adherence to tradition. Others are tiring of merely existing and are looking to change so they can grow. Our conference leadership is totally supportive to the point of assigning us a series of young pastors so we can teach them how gift-based ministry works and they can take the concept to other churches.
There was also a Church Manual in Jesus day as well called the Oral Law.
Yes. Consider how much it complicated the simplicity of the Decalogue and how far it took those who claimed to be God's people away from Him. They were so bound by human laws that it was impossible for them to please God.
Job Descriptions/Performance Evaluations for individuals can only be effective if the system has first been evaluated. If a system is faulty, the individual working within that organization will not be successful. Before JD/ PE are developed for the pastor, the GC, Union, Conference hierarchy need to be included in the process. Nothing worse than to have a dysfunctional leader wreak havoc on people below them.
I recently did my own informal survey as to what people in the SDA church pews are hearing regarding WO. Very little, despite the availability of the internet. So when I hear that the individuals in the churches have all the power – it makes me cringe. They may have all the power but they don't know it and have the impression that all the power is at the Conf/Union/GC levels. It is a major disconnect.
As a hobby, my father-in-law (SDA pastor) kept copies of all the correspondence with several of his pastor friends and included a copy of his letters as well. As a result, I was able to get a clear picture of the politics, expectations from on high which included ingathering goals, how many baptisms, how much tithe and offerings, etc. over a span of 40+ years. Amazing!!!!
So my plea is this – get it right – evaluate the system first as a management guru admonished in one of his books. I have spent many a year dealing with JD/PE in hospital settings and I have come away believing if the system is dealt with and the best people are at the top, the pastors and parishioners will be successful as well.
The letters would make for an interesting book – names redacted out of course.
I live in Australia, and I also did several informal polls and virtually no one had heard of the WO, even some retired pastors. It seemed like a media black out in our official pubications. Now that the GC has said there will be debate in the Review, the debate has lifted. However, of course the stories are statements from our Division and Union leaders affirming that we want me making any moves towards WO ahead of the ordination committee.
That all said, I only knew because I read it on AToday and Spectrum. A couple of decades ago, I would never had a chance to know.
The news was reported on the Record web site. Perhaps we need to get people interested enough to go looking for news. There is nothing stopping Australian conferences requesting WO be placed on the next Union session agenda, or even calling a special session. If you want that to happen, you need church members calling/emailing the conference president ands asking them to act. If no one is pushing for it, you can't expect it to happen. There were special sessions in the US and Germany because the conferences asked for them, not because the union or division leaders decided to hold them.
That reminds me of that scene from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where the construction company shows up at the door of the protaganist there to bulldoze his house to build a highway. When the protaganist complains that he didn't know about it, the construction man said words to the effect, 'But our building plans have been in the basement of the Council office for the last 6 months.'
Bea,
It sounds like those letters could give a very interesting perspective on a variety of topics. Ingathering? I had to think for a moment or two to really remember much about it.
Launching a serious discussion about performance reviews and objectives requires that we have a realization of failure needing correction. I'm not seeing that in my area. The church is still operating on trust that everyone is doing what God wants them to be doing. If that's true, why is the church growing so slowly, if not shrinking in North America? What crisis is required to create the awareness that we're not delivering significant results outside of our imaginations?
"These communication systems have changed the world forever and nothing will ever be the same."
In my view the man in the pew, unless endowed with wealth, has little chance to influence decision making in the church in general other than possibly in his own church. Even in the local church it usually is limited, in my experience, by whether the pastor or local rich guy agrees. Email goes unanswered too often by the hierarchy and even snail mail is apparently ignored these days.
And, as we know, leaders in certain church entities go forward with plans for ordaining women which is deliberate insubordination. If they can ignore church dictum relative to WO what other areas may be susceptible to contrary actions?
Ingathering!!! I never thought I would take the "bait" to share experiences about ingathering but here goes. Every pastor (bar none) groaned when the season of ingathering approached. It ruined Christmas forever for a pastor's family because it was Expected of them to successfully reach the goal. It was like a club over the head if not reached – if not surpassed. The idea was great – to canvas neighborhoods for the needy during the holiday season. Being from Michigan – it was freezing cold and I remember dropping my can because my fingers were so numb with cold. The pennies, nickels and dimes scattered in the snow.
As a student in college my fiance' and I went out to do our part. Part of the speech included the phrase "health and welfare". I was astonished when I heard my fiance say "wealth and hellfare"! We laughed about it for years.
Fast forward – all at once I was sitting in church and thought "what happened to ingathering"?? Poof it was gone. Now I wonder what year did Ingathering officially disappear?
My prediction is that slowly but surely each union within the North American division will stand up for Civil Rights and recognise that WO should happen. At the same time though, there will continue to be a steady hemorrhage of people exiting the SDA denomination. Meanwhile, I won't be holding my breath
Ingathering ended when it became common knowledge that the little spiel we were told as children, or older, to recite: "for the poor and needy" or similar.
When it was discovered that it was used to pay the salaries and went straight to the official church, it was blown. Not the only deceptive practices that have been initiated.
Someone else can add to or correct this memory.
Are we talking about collecting for ADRA? Charity Navigator gives ADRA 2 out of 4 star rating:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8078
Interestingly, it only gets 2 stars for financial management but 4 starts (full marks) for accountability and transparency. Programme expenses are still some 82.2%, so the vast majority of money it receives it spent on projects, not salaries. In fact, only 15.5% is spent on administrative expenses.
That said, it could probably do better. I know in Australia it now spends more on natural disasters and development programmes, not just on overseas aid, which is something that makes ingathering a whole lot easier.
Who controls the Church? The NAD perhaps?
Hopefully no one person or group controls the Church – we don't have a Pope who claims infallability – let's keep it that way please for all our sakes.
My proudly conservative colleagues (and I by no means consider myself anything more or less than a moderate, when it comes to my relationship with Adventism) insist that it's actually "the world" (i.e., secular culture, women's lib, rock 'n roll, liberal Protestantism, etc., etc.) that has come to dictate what Adventism does in North America. To some extent they are right, for culture is like a language (of which I know several) and when with Hispanics or Native Americans, etc., I will try to communicate in ways that best represent intelligently the message I want to express. In Adventism we all understand that age determines the "way" we teach, and we allow a great deal of percussion (for example) in children's divisions because we recognize that children like to hear things go "boom-boom" and "click-click" and "rattle-rattle" and even "vroom-vroom."
But we seem to have a great deal more problem altering the method of presentation to meet changing times within the adult culture—unless it happens to be in the mission field with "the natives." Then drums and other assorted instruments frowned on in the English-speaking world can suddenly be tolerated, for it is "cultural" (woops!, there we go), allowing culture to dictate how we convey the gospel. In fact, the operative term is "folkloric" and at the General Conference Session(for example) we will allow athletic men and women to engage in "traditional dancing" in "traditional costumes" because it is "traditional" and "native." So while in fact we accept that culture and language and age and ethnicity should influence our mode of worship and teaching, we kind of put the brakes on when Adventism's own "native culture" in the English-speaking world itself changes.
Then we feel real resistance, for example, to contemporary music, not because adapting to culture is un-Adventist, but because certain proud conservatives see in the old ways something immutably pure and unchanging that they prefer to retain. The fundamentals of Adventism are clear, but there are a million creative ways to convey them to the world, and one of the better and more convincing ways is to relate the teachings of the church to the culture in which the new believer lives—to let the communication forms of the cultures to guide us strategically. That's why evangelistic meetings in some nations include traditional drums (Pakistan) because in that culture, drums have significance as holy instruments used to summon the divine presence. In fact, the more we are "leaned on" from afar to align our conferences and churches to a worldwide norm, the less flexible we will be to adapt to the cultures we serve in the widely divergent areas where we preach the gospel in every language, to every tribe, to every nation, to every people, in a manner they understand as their preferred mode of communication. Some areas will not accept women as preachers; other areas will prefer them. Some areas will accept Ingathering-style programs; others will kick and scream at the intrusion of guests during the dead of winter. This is to be expected. Too bad that Ingathering was essentially "discontinued" when it was seen that it could not be effective everywhere—yet, in my home church as late as the early 1990s, it was very effective and at least some of us had a great time getting to know our neighbors and sharing home-made bread as well as truth-filled literature. But as soon as our church heard no more encouragement from on high, for various reasons the visitation program died. Too much central authority and codependence on central authority is generally not good for local congregations. Let the General Conference set out the big picture; let the local fields implement in culturally-specific ways.
Great points Edwin. Trying to say we should be in the world but not of the world is easy, but living it is much harder.
Whilst it might be easy to point to newer forms of belief and practice in North America and claim it has been influenced by 'the world', one needs to take a step back and ask what other traditional Adventist beliefs and practices derrive from 'the world', but a world some centuries ago. Where is the recipe of glutton steaks in the Bible, or the prescription of three hymns and a prayer as acceptable liturgy?
How much in the time of the OT and NT was also influenced by cultures around them? In our debate on WO, is has been noted that the word 'ordain' is not even found in the NT but rather comes from the Latin word 'ordio' for Roman social classes of Senatorial, Equestian and Common orders.
Some demonimations have responded to these concerns by simply cutting themselves off from all outside culture. The classic being the Amish. But even the Amish are still arguably living according to 'the world' rather than strictly in accordance with the scriptures, it is just the cutural norms of a few centuries ago – but not the world of the Bible. The Amish continue to fight cultural wars that have since passed generations ago, such as not having mistouches or wearing buttons because of their association with the Reformation-War era militarism.
Paul says he is like a Jews to the Jews, and Gentiles to the Gentiles. Jesus tells to be like salt, or like a city on a hill, which means getting out and mixing it up with others. In a very curious parable, Jesus also praises the crafty servant, who is as innocent as a dove but as cunning as a snake.
How we are to be of the world but not in the world is a very difficult question. Making blanket statements about being separate from the world is pointless, as is suggesting one group of Adventists have been effected by culture whilst others have not – we all have, even if we fail to recognise it.
I totally agree with your sentiments that we need allow Adventists at the local level to transmit the Gospel message using liturgical and organisational methods relevant to the local culture. Whilst the GC can and should promote universal principles, it is the local fields that indeed need that flexibility to find the best way to implement them in culturally-specific ways.
So, I am a little late to the conversation. However, I am teaching a Sabbath School lesson this week on the layers of bureaucracy in church that prevent the church-any church from functioning. (I teach a contemporary issues class.) I hold several offices in the church and am finding out that it is simply absurd what I have to go through to get anything accomplished; from spending the budget I have been given for my youth Sabbath School to having church members use the fellowship hall for gatherings that don't include the entire church. Your blog seems to address the church with a capital C, but what about the church…at a local level? I find so much of what happens on a church board to be so archaic, so out dated, run by a bunch of old people-SORRY, the truth, that they cannot bring the church into the 21st century and make it relevant for the rest of us. Rules that constrict and constrain the growth of our church. I'm not talking about anything that would make the church question its denominational beliefs. I am talking about rules and regulations that simply hinder the growth of a church body and turn people off. What about THAT kind of bureaucracy? HOW do you get rid of that?
Our system was set up with two main objectives: 1) to prevent "kingly power" from being exercised by one person or a small group; and 2) to allow decisions to be made where they need to be made by those most effected. That we have a 'bureaucracy' at any level indicates that we have allowed the system to be hijacked and distorted. Very little of that bureaucratisation is enshrined in either constitutions or policies – in fact, they usually still are aimed at preventing it. The paper released a little while ago by the GC is an excellent summary of the areas of authority of each level, and the limits of that authority. It also clearly states something that is often overlooked: all authority is held by the members worldwide and is delegated upwards as needed. Whether we take it or not, the members have the final authority and are able to hold their elected representatives accountable.
Before starting on a program to change the way things are done, it would be good to first find out two things: 1) how things should be done according to church policy [church manual and conference policy]; and, 2) why things are being done as they are in your church. Often we do something in response to a real need, then continue to do so long after the need passes. Tradition is a two-edged sword; it both preserves our church and also threatens to destroy it. We need to learn how to use it well so it helps us to move forward rather than holding us back. When it comes to church politics [and every church has that, and we all need to learn how to take part if we want to achieve anything] it is very wise to take Jesus' advice to be 'as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves'. In all we do, we need to act in a way that is consistent with our claim to be Christians, no matter how others may behave.
IT was said elsewhere, sometimes change comes one funeral at a time….
Hurrump. i had wished not to revisit this painful scene again, after it causing me so much grief 35 years ago. Here is my assessment of the basic problem of the church's inability to have a glorious interaction of its membership. The dog is controlled by the tail. The tail is the GC. Its rear end, in the past, was protected by the Unions. The Unions rear end was protected by the Conferences. The Conferences controlled the Pastors, and all conference industries employment. The congregation provided the grease {money,money,money} to make it all happen. All actions and planning of anything & everything (policies), that saw the light of day, flowed downward from the GC. Oh, yes, they always smiled and suggested the local peon to forward their ideas up through the local conference, and how often were these upward intended suggested recommendations, good, or bad, ever have any acknowledgement, other than a subordinate thanking you for your interest in the church, and advising you the conference president & committees will study your recommendations (they probably had a form letter for this), before filing your submission in the round filing cabinet. i speak of this as a first person experience of serving as first elder of the large church in the Ontario conference, serving on conference executive audit committee, Canadian Union delegate. The conference President & treasurer always (ALWAYS) promoted "Brothers, all we need is faith" taking precedence over a Solid business plan submitted by competent qualified advisement. Every constituent meeting, even election of officers, was controlled by the conference leaders, stacking every discussion group with their hand chosen henchmen, to ensure the results they wanted. As a result, both the Ontario conference, and the Canadian Union suffered millions of dollars of losses, just on the summer camp properties alone, in Ontario & Sask. In Ontario, although already having a beautiful but smaller fully paid for camp, it was suggested that church members take out bank loans, and advance it to the conference, to jump start the acquisition of a new camp, from a large Protestant church which had a membership several times larger than the Ontario conference, who were selling it because of continued losses. They totally ignored a study presented that entailed a requirement for water, sewage, and winterization of the whole property at a cost of $1.8 million, in addition to the purchase price. At a conference audit committee, two of us, out of approx 25 committee members, voted not to approve the new budget, because of the chicanery of borrowing from the tithe fund for payments of bank loans of non tithe losses. The Union treasurer stood up and spoke at the conference meeting saying that it would be a millstone around their neck. It was, and the Pres. & treasurer were then transferred to a US conference, where later it was reported the same situation re-ocurred.
The hierarchy of the SDA are treated as CELEBRITIES. It is assumed they have a priveledged first call on the Holy Spirit's counsel, above and beyond that of the pew sitter. i believe the modus operandi of the conference, as illustrated above, is part of the traditional operating methods from the GC downward. Each kept in line for fear of stunting of career or outright dismissal.
A.Initially would suggest removal of a layer of bureaucacy, either the Union or the Conference.
B. Set up a committee of all Pastors (ALL) to advise the remaining layer of interface between GC &
PASTORS. A ruling that the GC, or the interface, cannot overrule the Pastors Group. The interface group and the GC to be determined by a two thirds voting of each member of the PASTORS Group every 4 years. The Pastors then reliant on the membership of each church for employment, and remuneration, to be determined by the church board, chaired by the head elder. The elders, deacons, deaconesses,church board, & all church officers and departments, to be voted by the church membership at large, annually. The chuch pastor not to be a member of the church business comittee.
This would, i believe, be a vibrant WHOLE church participation, with every member of equal status, as we each individually accept our responsibility of letting the HOLY SPIRIT lead. Praise God, the ALMIGHTY.
Sorry, I live in Bangladesh, so am not able to check this very often. Couple of excellent points and questions were asked about, on what we might have done in RMC that was perceived to be against the church manual.
1. The church board was set up by each church in business session as a governance board, not as a representational permission board. This was the huge issue for some. But if you understand the difference and are seriously interested in getting any organization on track, then I strongly suggest you study governance structures, vision, mission and accountability issues. Those are the biggest issues currently missing from our denominational structure.
A few other thoughts:
Vision is a clear statement that helps an organization understand, visualize where they are going, and help them know precisely when they get there. Many organizations have fuzzy, "nice" vision statements, but you never really know when you get there.
Mission – is a articulate passionate statement to which I am willing to commit and sacrifice!
Many if not most mission statements are aspirational mission statements, or institutional documents that a committee has created to attempt to include everyone. But few are willing to sacrifice for such a mission.
Governance, really can't be summed up in a few words, but at the risk of not saying anything, I'll put these in.
Governance creates the boundaries, in which leadership is given the free reign to lead.
As one person suggested, they were quite tired of having to justify every expenditure to the "permission" church board. A governance board, creates the boundaries, (i.e. stay within your budget) and then allows the people they trust to carry out their specific mission they have submitted.
The NT is filled with people being trusted to carry out the mission and calling given them by God without a small group of people being able to "control" or grant them "permission" to obey God's call. At the same time, in a governance board, accountability also must go up, or evil will rise and destroy the system.
A governance boards studies the current systems they have in place and hears reports on their viability, and then studies the systems that will be needed if the church continues to grow as the vision statement suggests.
I'll throw out a question: NT suggests that one of the systems given the church is Spiritual Gifts, why is that system conspicuous by its absence from most Adventist churches?
OK, I'll stop there – life here in Dhaka is a real trip!
The main problem is not with our system, but how we use it. Or, more often, how we allow our leaders to misuse it. That is why policy changes very rarely do what we hope: we fail to change the culture of those implementing policy. That may require changing those who implment policy: either by persuasion or not re-electing them. Perhaps part of the problem is that we feel sympathy for our leaders, as we know given the chance we would also do what they are doing. We are no less prone to expediency and taking the easier road than they are.
Perhaps that is why we make little use of the spiritual gifts – they are rarely expedient or easy. Bureaucracy and top-down authority is simpler and easier, and often appears more effective in the short term. I guess we all rely at times on our belief/hope that any negative consequences will be delayed long enough that we won't suffer them.
So, I am curious. Does no one have an answer to my question. Because you all still seem to be talking about the church with a C. Mission statements are great-I led the committee to write one for our church. I used to sit on the school board, I select people to sit in positions; I teach 2 Sabbath Schools-we pray about spiritual gifts. I am not talking about any of those things. I am talking specifically about how to move the cogs in the wheel that prevent the church from actually functioning on a daily basis. When I have to have approval from 3 people to get an announcement in the bulletin-how is that even helpful? How does that make me want to be involved? HOW do I change that when Not many are welcoming of change-and I hate to say it, but my church board profile is 55+–80. How is that even relevant when people who attend my church ARE NOT THAT AGE? People who are making decisions for the majority of the church are so out of touch.
Perhaps you start with considering the question of who votes these old people into office. I have little sympathy for churches that complain that most members don't want the leaders they have. Vote 'NO' when the names are put forward. If you vote 'YES', then live with the results. The members have the ultimate control of the local church, if they choose to take it. If they don't, then they have no one to blame but themselves. Turn up for Business Meetings and use the rights you have to vote on issues and to raise issues. Many of our problems – from the local church up to the GC – result from the constituents – who legally and morally have the authority – standing back and not doing what they believe should be done. If we aren't prepared to take up our responsibility – and suffer the consequences – then we have no right to complain.
Dano,
Welcome to the future of Adventism where the average age is 51; which means that half are older than that and most small churches are where the older members are. This is a demonstration that the church is not growing, but dying when there is insufficient younger members. What to do? That is the biggest problem of all, as all churches are experiencing the same thing and today the number of unchurched is the fastest growing segment.
Please read the book "Hit the Bullseye," which is the story of another denomination deciding to make the changes, so they quit sliding toward what you all are describing. And this was the model we were copying in RMC, and yes inviting Paul Borden to come and consult with us. Paul is a good friend, and very wise church consultant, but as he advised, highly connected organizations are very difficult to change, because "every system is designed to get exactly what it is getting." If you want different results, then you must change the system! (now you may begin to see why we were considered a threat in RMC)
Yes we specifically were making just such statements, and NAD had actually funded a couple of leadership seminars where scholars from Fuller, etc., came to help us analyze our current progress, describe the challenges ahead and give us the courage to move forward.
Oh, our experiment was approved by Mid-America Union, though that was entirely forgotten, when the upper levels decided instead of a good thing we were a threat.
We live in a changing world. Post modernism is dramatically changing the cultures around us at warp speed, and the church is moving at "horse and buggy" speed. At some point leaders attempt to find out what is absolutely core about the message of scripture and calling of God and attempt to move forward into the next generation. It is always the challenge of the current generation to communicate the gospel in such a manner that it is understood and "caught" by the next generation. The power, turf and control issues of any and every generation, must be resisted and gently set aside as the gospel takes precedence always!
A wise church always attempts to listen and empower it youth, setting aside its own preferences for worship style, music or dress, so that the house of God is filled with the emerging generation. Its called discipleship. And if your local church "doesn't get it!" Then do it in your home! Its not an option, its a calling by God on each of our lives. I also believe God does have an organized movement, and will keep working to empower and create just such a healthy organization, but times are fairly tough right now. But God's movement will emerge!
My point is not to be discouraged and wait for a few more funerals! LEAD!
Leaders are called by God to make a difference, create healthy environments in which the body of Christ is not only allowed, but encouraged to function. Systems are analyzed and adapted or changed to reflect the mission of the church, not the other way around!
Bottom line, God has called us to lead!