Statement
on Church Governance and Unity Secretariat, General Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists September 2016
I.
Introduction
This statement brings together
references from the Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, and Seventhday
Adventist history for the purpose of informing and guiding the Church in
relation to policies concerning the ordination and
credentialing of Seventh-day Adventist pastors. It also contributes
to the discussion about unity in light of the vote at the 2015 General
Conference (GC) Session not to allow divisions to
decide on the matter of women’s ordination in their territories.
It is expected this ongoing
discussion will help to clarify what the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy have
to say about unity. As we move forward, there will continue to be dialogue at
administrative levels regarding the issue of compliance. What follows
addresses, in short form, essential points from A Study of Church Governance
and Unity prepared by the General Conference Secretariat (referred to as the Study). That document explores these issues at
greater length and elaborates the world Church’s position on some aspects of
certain recent practices. This statement and the
Study are structured similarly, making it easier to explore the evidence and
analysis that support the positions summarized below. Both documents draw on the Fundamental Beliefs and Church
Manual to inform how the Adventist Church relates to the GC Constitution and Bylaws, GC Working Policy, GC Session
actions, and statements by the GC Executive Committee.
II.
Unity
and Policy
1. The Biblical Doctrine of Unity
Unity is of central importance in
Scripture and is the subject of the Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Beliefs
numbers 12 and 14. As Jesus faced the ultimate trial of the cross, it was not
His own imminent torment that was uppermost in His mind. Instead, it was the
fate of His followers, for whom He prayed at length: “I pray for them. I am not
praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours”
(John 17:9).1 Concerned not only for His followers’ safety but also for their
unity, He prayed, “Holy Father, protect them . . . that they may be one as we
are one” (17:11). Jesus also prayed for His future disciples through the ages:
“I pray also for those who will believe in me
through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as
you are in me and I am in you” (17: 20-21). Jesus wanted the same unity for
these future disciples—in other words, for the Church: “that they may be
brought to complete unity,” that “the world will know that you sent me and have
loved them even as you have loved me” (17:23). 2 Christ’s desire was that “all
who believe in [Him should] be one” in the same way the members of the Godhead
are one (John 17:11). That profound triune unity, from which creation sprang,
is the quality Christ wants for us, His followers. It is by our “complete
unity” and love for each other that the world will know the truth of our claims
about Christ and Christianity.
Unity among the first
believers—drawn from many nationalities and ethnicities, but baptized by the
Holy Spirit—was one of the primary factors in the extraordinary missional
success of the early church, as described in the book of Acts; and unity was a
constant theme of the Apostle Paul (see Study, pp 3–4). For example, Paul
prayed that God would give the Roman believers “a spirit of unity as you follow
Christ Jesus” (Rom 15:5-6). He enjoined the believers in Ephesus to “submit to one another out of reverence for
Christ” (Rom 5:21) and similarly charged the Colossian Christians: “Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may
have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these
virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity” (Col
3:13-14). Writing to the church in Corinth, Paul famously likens the
church to a body made up of different organs, using that metaphor to emphasize
the diversity within the body of Christ. He
concludes with an affirmation: “Now you are together
the body of Christ, and each of you is a part of it” (1 Cor 12:12, Phillips,
emphasis supplied; cf. 12:13-27).
2. Unity in the Writings of Ellen
G White2
Writing about unity, Ellen G
White often expounds on Christ’s prayer in John 17. It is a passage she
repeatedly cites for various purposes, but particularly, when addressing
Adventists on the necessity of unity and united action. She ascribes
exceptional importance to this passage. Many examples could be cited (see
Study, pp 4-7), but the following are indicative of her thought. In a testimony
on “Christian unity” published in 1882, Ellen White states: “Unity is strength; division is weakness.” She
counsels that “the people of God should press together,” reminding her readers
“that union and love might exist among His disciples was the burden of our
Saviour’s last prayer for them prior to His crucifixion. With the agony of the
cross before Him, His solicitude was not for Himself, but for those whom He
should leave to carry forward His work in the earth.”3 She
quotes John 17:17–21 before affirming “that prayer of Christ embraces all His
followers to the close of time.” 4 Later in this testimony, she
quotes Ephesians 4, applies it to Seventh-day Adventists, and declares: “Paul’s
instructions were not written alone for the church in his day. God designed that they should be sent down to us. What are we doing to preserve unity in the bonds of
peace?” 5 In a general testimony in 1898 she urges church members, “Study
prayerfully the seventeenth chapter of John.” The people of God should study
the words of Jesus in this prayer, “to eat them, to live them. He calls upon
them to seek for unity and love.” 6 In
1902, Ellen White wrote that Adventists are not just to study John 17: “We are
to do all in our power to answer the prayer in the seventeenth chapter of
John—Christ’s prayer for unity.”7 In a powerful testimony nearly two years
later, she again appeals to church members “to learn
to answer the prayer in the seventeenth chapter of John.”
Adventists, she affirms, “are to make this prayer our first study.”8 After
quoting Christ’s words at length, she affirms: “Union
brings strength; disunion, weakness.” 9
3 In addition to commenting on John 17, Ellen White writes frequently of unity
and harmony, whether in testimonies or commentary on other biblical passages.
Some of her observations are quoted later in this statement, but it is notable
that she links unity to revival and reformation.
“When this reformation begins,” she writes, “the spirit of discord and strife”
will end. “Those who have not been living in Christian fellowship will draw close
to one another [and] all will be in harmony with the
mind of the Spirit.”10
3. Policy and Unity
We have seen that in Scripture
and the Spirit of Prophecy unity is extraordinarily important. Conveyed by the
pens of inspiration, God’s message to His people in biblical times and to His
remnant church at the end of time has important implications for our
governance. We are to work collaboratively and
unitedly, rather than unilaterally. Only when we are united will we
succeed in making disciples and building up the Church. Even more profoundly,
our unity is the litmus test of our claim to follow Jesus Christ, as He Himself
declared (John 17:23).
But what is the connection
between unity and policy?
The present GC Working Policy is
the fruit of 150 years of collegial, prayerful, and frequently prolonged
discussions among church leaders from around the world chosen by church members
to represent them. Measures became policy only when a
majority agreed on them, and usually only after a wider consensus was reached.
Although GC Working Policy is formatted in numbered and lettered paragraphs,
its real purpose is not to produce a perfect
bureaucratic system but to promote mission and unity.
Ultimately, it is not
policy but the power of the Holy Spirit that holds us together, working through
human instrumentalities and avenues. A number of factors promote unity in the
Seventhday Adventist Church. We are united by our:11 · Commitment to Christ · Common biblical beliefs · Shared passion for mission to
the world · Joint weekly study of the
Sabbath School Bible Study Guide · Interdependent worldwide
organizational structure · Mutually agreed-upon practices
and policies Most important are our shared
beliefs and our common mission “to call all people to become disciples of Jesus
Christ, to proclaim the everlasting gospel embraced by the Three Angels’
Messages, and to prepare the world for Christ’s soon return.”12 But Church
policy strengthens all the other factors and thus helps to achieve unity in the
Church. The Seventh-day Adventist Church takes seriously the doctrine of unity
and unreservedly echoes Christ’s appeal to God in John 17:23, praying that the
Church “may be brought to complete unity” as a witness to the world. 4
III.
Diversity,
Unity, and Authority The question naturally arises:
What about diversity? Scripture and the
Spirit of Prophecy reveal that unity can flourish in diversity, but relationships
among members of the body of Christ must be characterized by interdependence rather than independence.
1.
Diversity
in the Early Church In the Bible, diversity is a
positive quality, not a negative one. The first, fundamental thing we know
about God is that He is Creator. It follows that He must value variety and
multiplicity, for His self-expression in creation is extraordinarily—almost
infinitely—rich and diverse. The New Testament speaks to the virtue of
diversity in God’s eyes, as does the Spirit of Prophecy. Moreover, Ellen G
White explicitly writes several times about the value
of “unity in diversity” (Study, p 11). The biblical writers and Ellen
White affirm, in a number of passages, that unity
and diversity can coexist, but these point to the overarching
importance of unity. Indeed, implicit in these statements is that diversity can cause confusion and conflict (see Study, pp 2-6). An
appropriate decision-making process is needed—one that allows an acceptable
degree of diversity while preserving unity. Jesus invested His disciples with
plenary power: “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be
bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”
(Matt 18:18, NKJV). Ellen G White repeatedly referenced this text in
testimonies, over a 40-year period, underscoring the
significance and plenitude of the authority awarded to the apostles.13
Yet the apostles may have
wondered how this authority was to be implemented in practice. The first
believers in Jerusalem, though all Jews, were from many different countries
(Acts 2:5; 6:1). Ellen White writes that they “all were in harmony with one another.
Satan knew that so long as this union continued to exist, he would be powerless
to check the progress of gospel truth; and he sought
to take advantage of former habits of thought . . . to introduce into the
church elements of disunion.”14 Dissension between Greek- and
Hebrew-speaking believers ensued (Acts 6:1), but despite their unhappiness, the
Greek-speaking Jews did not take matters into their own hands. Instead, the
apostles, as leaders of the whole community of believers, considered the situation
and, “led by the Holy Spirit,” they conceived “a plan for the better
organization of all the working forces of the church.” The majority made a plan to care
for the needs and desires of the minority group by appointing the first
deacons, an approach that had positive results.15 As the believers spread out
from Judaea, there could no longer be just one local community of Christians.
As they began to convert not just Jews who spoke various languages, but
Gentiles too, controversy was perhaps inevitable. When crucial issues arose,
however, they were not resolved independently but collectively. This approach ensured that unity
was preserved even though the challenges arising from diversity were so serious
that, in theory, they could have led to a disastrous schism. 5 In Antioch there was “sharp
dispute and debate” between “believers who belonged to the party of the
Pharisees” who maintained that all Christians had to be circumcised, and Paul
and Barnabas, who did not require this of their Gentile converts (Acts 15:2,
5). There was so “much discussion and contention” at Antioch, Ellen White
writes, that the local believers, “fearing . . . a division among them . . .
decided to send Paul and Barnabas, with some responsible men from the church,
to Jerusalem to lay the matter before the apostles and elders.”16 What is often
called the “Jerusalem Council” is significant almost as much for its process as
for the theological decision that resulted. It is noteworthy that “the apostles and elders came together to consider this
matter” and then took a decision that was regarded as binding on churches everywhere.17
Ellen G White indicates that the members of the council were “teachers who had
been prominent in raising up the Jewish and Gentile Christian churches;” they
came from Jerusalem, Antioch, “and the most influential churches. . . . The entire body of Christians was not called to vote upon the
question. The ‘apostles and elders,’ men
of influence and judgment, framed and issued the decree, which was thereupon
generally accepted by the Christian churches.”18 Their decision was to affirm
diversity in theology and key religious practices; Jewish Christians would
continue to circumcise and adhere to the full panoply of the Mosaic law,
whereas converted Gentiles were exempted from most of its provisions, except
that they were encouraged to “remember the poor” and instructed to “abstain
from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from
sexual immorality” (Gal 2:10; Acts 15:29, NKJV). To many Jewish believers, the
twin-track approach would have seemed like apostasy and some “were not . . . prepared to accept willingly the
decision of the council.” This, though, was a minority reaction. “The broad and far-reaching decisions of the general council
brought confidence into the ranks of the Gentile believers, and the cause of
God prospered.”19 Territorial
Desires for Actions not Sanctioned The lesson from this episode is not that “anything goes”—that local groups of believers can respond to controversies
as they see fit. The Antiochene church could have claimed that
circumcision was an issue only for the churches in Syria and Cilicia (cf. Acts
15:23). But a different model was established by the Jerusalem Council, as
Ellen White observes: “When dissension arose in a
local church,” it was “not permitted to create a division in the church, but
[instead] referred to a general council of the entire body of believers, made
up of appointed delegates from the various local churches, with the apostles
and elders in positions of leading responsibility. Thus the efforts
of Satan to attack the church in isolated places were met by concerted action
on the part of all, and the plans of the enemy . . . were thwarted.”20 In sum,
the lesson of the Jerusalem Council is that, in the Church, diversity of practice can be allowed, but only after a representative body has agreed to allow some
variation. [Van Wyk Note:
It must be biblical though]. A
key New Testament principle emerges from both this episode and that of the
widows and deacons: decision-making issues with
implications that may extend beyond the local or regional should be collective,
rather than unilateral. 6
2. Diversity
and Authority in the Seventh-day Adventist Church Seventh-day Adventists believe
the authority granted to the Church by Jesus enables
Church leaders to make decisions that bind all members. Further, we collectively subordinate ourselves to decisions taken at
GC Sessions and Annual Councils. These bodies are our highest
authorities, reflecting both the model of the Jerusalem Council and Ellen G
White’s explicit counsel (see Study, pp 20-28). Adventists further follow the
New Testament model in providing for as much diversity as possible without
imperiling unity. Decisions are made at the local and regional levels as much
as possible, but major issues or questions with wider implications are decided
at the highest level by representative bodies. The Church encourages and
maintains diversity in three ways: (1) by assigning authority to
different levels of structure, (2) by prescribing policy only
when necessary, and (3) by allowing diversity of practice
where there is consensus. a. Delegated Authority Adventist ecclesiastical polity,
as defined and described in GC Working Policy, is unique because “internal governance” is not hierarchical but
“representative” (B 05, paragraph 1.). The decision-making process
at each level involves input from other levels. Unlike
traditional hierarchical denominations, authority derives from the lowest level
of structure—the local church—and flows upward through constituency-based units
to the highest level—the General Conference. “The Seventh-day Adventist Church
has developed on the principle of interdependence rather than independence.”21 Inherent in our system of representative, consultative,
consensus-based decision-making is that organizational units and representatives
of church members have input into the decisions of organizations at higher
levels of structure. However, having had input, reciprocity means that there must be
acceptance of the collective decision. The
authority of an organizational unit at any level is plenary in its territory,
encompassing all constituent or component organizations at lower levels. The latter
are bound by the decisions of the higher-level units of which they form a part. This applies to unions that
compose the constituency of the General Conference. 22 The provisions of the
General Conference’s Constitution and Bylaws apply to and are binding on its
member unions, as well as divisions. The Bylaws provide that “all organizations and institutions within a division’s
territory,” while “responsible to their respective executive
committees/boards,” must still “operate in harmony with division and General
Conference Executive Committee actions and policies” (Art. I. Sec. 4.). They specify that the GC
Executive Committee “speaks for the world Church” because its membership
“includes representatives of all the divisions of the world field and the
presidents of all unions” (Art. XIII. Sec. 1. a.). GC
Working Policy adds that strict adherence to policy is required of “all
organizations in every part of the world field” (B 15 10, paragraph 1.). “Officers and
administrators” of every conference/mission, union, and division “are expected
to work in harmony with the General Conference Working Policy” (B 15 15). 7 No organizational
unit has a right, unilaterally, to take decisions on important matters or
depart from decisions taken by units at a higher level of structure with wider
authority. Recognition as a conference, mission, or
union brings with it decision-making authority in defined areas and the right
of representation at higher levels of denominational structure, but both are
contingent on “compliance with denominational practices and policies” and “can
be reviewed, revised, amended, or withdrawn by the level of organization that
granted it” (B 05, paragraph 3.). Self
views on ordination of women by union not permitted Even though
unions have their own constituencies and constitutions, in the interdependent
Adventist system of church governance, the responsibility to comply with world
Church practices and policies supersedes all other considerations. Culture
and freedom However, “individual units of the
Church are given freedom to function in ways appropriate to their role and
culture,” as long as these are “in harmony with the
teachings and policies of the Church, and the actions of the world Church in
the General Conference Executive Committee or in General Conference Session” (B
10 25). Unity in diversity is a vital quality of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church, in line with statements by Ellen G White (see Study, pp
10-11); it is thus not the case that unity (in compliance
with Adventist church governance) means uniformity. Examples of global
diversity of practice arise from decisions both taken and not taken by the
world Church.
b. Diversity in Practice The GC Constitution, Bylaws, and
Working Policy grant extensive power to GC Sessions and to the GC Executive
Committee between Sessions. But the world Church simply has not addressed a
great many topics and, in the absence of definite
policy provisions, there has existed what might be termed tacit diversity—since
the diverse practices arise from church leaders’ lack of action rather than
their explicit approval (see Study, pp 15-16). Active
diversity, default diversity, and blanket permitted variations from standard
policy Where policy
is silent,
a range of practices can and do flourish.
However, when a GC Session or the
GC Executive Committee has formally taken a stance
on an issue, that decision cannot be ignored. A number of variances
from policy have been officially permitted: this could be termed active diversity—since it arises because of
positive action rather than by default.
Examples include specific regional variations permitted in particular fields
(see Study, p 17). There are also, however, instances in Working Policy of, in
effect, blanket variations from standard policy that
any local union or conference/mission is permitted to adopt, in the interest of
mission in its particular context (see Study, pp 17-18). Examples:
These include some models of
organization, such as the union of churches, that once were controversial
because they involved adaptation of the standard structure. After years of
consideration by the world Church, however, provision was made in GC Working
Policy for four “alternatives in organizational structure” (B 10 28). A
decision by the world Church permitted system-wide
diversity of practice, on a case-by-case basis, while preserving standard
practice. The crucial point about all these
variancesis that they were authorized by the world Church. Representatives of all Seventh-day Adventists deliberated
together and reached a consensus that some Adventists could organize
differently.[Van Wyk notes: They must comply
to biblical standards]. This
is in keeping with the example of the Jerusalem Council. 8
3.
Acting
Collaboratively, Not Unilaterally Longstanding Adventist practice,
reflecting the model found in the book of Acts, is to let diversity flourish
whenever possible, but to reserve to the world Church decisions to allow
diversity in matters of significance. However, once
representatives from around the world, meeting and discussing together in good
faith, have jointly made a decision, that decision must be respected. [Van
Wyk Notes: matters of pragmatic nature
can be changed by consensus but matters of biblical
theological stances cannot be changed by consensus, see Heppenstall’s view
in Christ Our High Priest].
Unilateral action at
the union and conference levels diminishes “the worldwide identity, harmony and
unity of the Church.”23 Decisions
taken at the world Church level are binding on all levels of structure. In the Adventist
system of church governance, the GC Session is and always has been the supreme
authority in the Church. In ascribing highest authority to the GC Session,
Seventh-day Adventists are applying the biblical model found in Acts, while
also following the counsel of Ellen G White, who writes about the authority of
the General Conference in the strongest terms and with great consistency over
nearly four decades.
4.
The
Authority of the General Conference in the Spirit of
Prophecy GC Working Policy mandates that
all denominational organizations and institutions are to “recognize the authority of the General Conference Session as
the highest authority of the Seventh-day Adventist Church under God” (B 10 22).
The preeminent authority of the GC Session derives from
statements by Ellen G White.[It is not to set up an Advent
Papacy but doctrinal matters and biblical theological issues cannot transpire
and cannot change] Because what she writes on this
subject has been both misunderstood and misrepresented, her statements and
their historical context are explored in some depth in the Study (pp 12-26). In an 1875 testimony rebuking a
church member for his “individual independence,” Ellen White declares: “God has
invested His church with special authority and power which no one can be justified in disregarding and despising, for in
so doing he despises the voice of God.”24 She affirms: “If there were no church discipline and government, the
church would go to fragments; it could not hold together as a body.”25
In another testimony from 1875, she declares: “I have
been shown that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any
one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest
authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and
private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered” [emphasis
supplied].26 Today, most Seventh-day
Adventists would probably understand “General Conference” to mean the permanent
overarching organization and world headquarters. However, in the first two or
three decades of the denomination, when church members and leaders wrote of the
“General Conference,” they typically meant the GC
Session. This is important to bear in mind when considering Ellen
White’s statements about the General Conference in the period 1891-1901, when
she, several times, explicitly denies that the GC was the voice of God.27 Yet
in 1909, she made several strong statements that repeat her assertions of 1875.
9 There is in fact no contradiction. The key to understanding what the Spirit
of Prophecy says about the authority of the General Conference and the world
Church is the clear distinction Ellen White draws between the different
possible meanings of “General Conference”: the GC
administration (the president and a small permanent staff around him); a very
small and unrepresentative GC Executive Committee (in 1901 its membership was
only 13 and the five members who lived in Battle Creek transacted most of its
business); and
the GC Session, which was representative of the whole body of Adventist
believers. It was the
“GC” in the first two senses that Ellen G White, during the 1890s, denied was
the voice of God—not the GC Session. This is clear when one considers
that her more skeptical statements about the “GC” deny that a small and
unrepresentative group can exercise ecclesiastical authority; this should, she urges, be exercised by a representative body.
She consistently warns against authority exercised
by individuals (“kingly power”) or tiny groups of leaders (“two or three men”
or even “a half a dozen that [try] to be a ruling and a controlling power”).
28 GC
Session is the authority of God 1875 There is little or no evidence
that she ever altered her 1875 view that the GC
Session spoke with the authority of God. It was a point to which she
returned in an address to the 1909 GC Session. She returns to, amplifies, and
nuances her 1875 testimony after 34 years, but essentially repeats its main
points: I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man’s judgment should
be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of
one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power
to control the work and to say what plans shall be followed. But when in a
General Conference the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the
field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be
stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a
virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence contrary to
the decision of the general body [emphasis supplied].29 God has ordained that the
representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a
General Conference, shall have authority [emphasis supplied]. The error that
some are in danger of committing is in giving to the
mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full
measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church in the
judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the
prosperity and advancement of His work. 30 Knowing that many of the 1909
delegates would be aware of what she had previously written about the “voice of
God,” she explains why a decade earlier she had written harsh things about the
GC leadership: a “small group” of leaders had been “entrusted with the general
management of the work” and had acted “in the name of the General Conference.”
She explicitly contrasts this with “the decisions of a General Conference
composed of an assembly of duly appointed, representative men from all parts of
the field” [emphasis supplied]. 31 This language plainly refers to the GC
Session (though as time passed, it would come to be applicable to a meeting of
the enlarged GC Executive Committee as well), as do her references to “the
brethren 10 assembled from all parts of the field” and “the representatives of
His church from all parts of the earth.” Ellen White’s last word on the
subject came in 1911: “God has made His church on the earth a channel of light,
and through it He communicates His purposes and His will. . . . God has invested His church with special authority and power,
which no one can be justified in disregarding and despising; for he who does
this despises the voice of God” [emphasis supplied].32 Here her counsel of 1875 is
repeated, word for word. Similarly, in 1909, her
conclusion was the same as in 1875 about what happens “when, in a General
Conference,” representatives from the whole church deliberate and make decisions:
“private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be
surrendered.”
IV.
Unilateralism
Unilateral
action on important matters is contrary to the biblical model and to
longstanding Adventist practice. Significant decisions should be made after prior
consultation with other levels of church structure and be in harmony with
decisions already taken by the wider body of believers. This approach helps
retain unity in church life and an emphasis on mission.
1.
Biblical
Principles Christ warned His disciples of
the danger of distraction (e.g. Matt. 24:24). The apostle Paul urged the early
believers to emulate him in “forgetting what lies behind and straining forward
to what lies ahead,” and to “press on toward the goal for the prize of the
upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this
way” (Phil 3:13-15, ESV). Our calling is clear: to witness for Jesus, making
disciples by teaching and baptizing, and proclaiming the prophetic truths of
Revelation 14. There is a danger that internal disputes will cause us to lose
focus on the prophetic mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The divisiveness latent within unilateralism is inconsistent
with the biblical model. When Paul uses the metaphor of the body for the
church, he describes different organs of the body criticizing each other and
imagining that they can be independent, before affirming that God intends the
different parts of the body to “work together as a whole . . . in sympathetic
relationship with one another.” Implicit in Paul’s call to believers to “submit
to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21) is that diversity and
difference of opinion or practice will exist in the body of believers, and that
some believers will, at times, find themselves in the minority, having failed
to persuade fellow church members of their view. Paul does not depict this as a
problem per se. What matters is that believers, when in the minority, submit to
the decision of the wider body of believers. 11
2.
Ellen
G White’s Warnings Unilateral decision-making was a
particular concern of Ellen G White; she consistently warned against it over
many years. Her repeated testimonies indicate that overly independent,
unilateral action is a particular danger to the Remnant Church in its end-time
mission. The longer Study analyzes Ellen White’s counsel at some length (pp
30-34) and is summarized here. Part of her concern was that the Adventist
Church not be distracted from mission by internal disputes. However, her
counsel also stresses that independent action makes outreach less effective.
She also articulates her opposition to unilateralism—not merely in practical or
missiological terms, but as a principled objection. She
repeatedly maintains that collective and collaborative decision-making should
be the norm in the Seventh-day Adventist Church because the Church is one body
(cf. 1 Cor 12:12). Many statements could be quoted, but her counsel to
Adventist leaders in Europe is particularly relevant. In 1885, she enjoined
them: “All should make it a point to counsel together .
. . . No one worker has all the wisdom that is needed. There should be a
comparing of plans, a counseling together.”33 Twenty years later,
writing of divisions arising from ethnic differences, she encourages them to
“put all this aside,” charging them to “work together in harmony . . .
forgetting that they are Americans or Europeans, Germans or Frenchmen, Swedes,
Danes, or Norwegians.” She then warns: “We have no
right to keep our minds stayed on ourselves, our preferences, and our fancies.
We are not to seek to maintain a peculiar identity of our own . . . which will
separate us from our fellow laborers.”34 According to the Spirit of
Prophecy, neither individuals nor small groups of leaders should act without
consulting widely; and they ought not act contrary to the counsel of the wider
body, once it has been given. Moreover, Ellen White makes it plain that
unilateralism can arise not just from independent-mindedness but sometimes from
the influence of evil forces, and that its effects will be damaging. Of many
testimonies to this effect, two stand out. In 1888, she cautions that in the
“last days” there would be “among the remnant . . . those who wish to move
independently of the body, [and] who are not willing to be subject to the body
of the church.” Yet, she warns: “It is a delusion of the enemy for anyone to
feel that he can disconnect from the body . . . and think he is doing God’s
work. We are one body, and every member is to be united to the body.”35 In
1909, she states: “I have been instructed that it is
Satan’s special effort to lead men to feel that God is pleased to have them
choose their own course independent of the counsel of their brethren.”36
Words Ellen G White wrote in the early 1880s regarding “Christian unity” are
applicable to the Adventist Church today: “We cannot
afford now to give place to Satan by cherishing disunion, discord, and strife.”37
V.
Application
Having surveyed relevant
teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and Ellen G White; early church practice; and
Adventist practice and policy; how, then, should we act? 12
1.
Representation
and Decision-Making The situation that prompted the
censure by Ellen White in the 1890s, in which a small group sought to control
all aspects of the church’s mission, is a world away from the situation today.
There are, in addition to several hundred local conferences and missions, a
total of 135 unions and 13 divisions—each with defined authority in its
territory and its own executive committee—making collaborative decisions. The
GC Executive Committee, a body representative of the world Church, makes major
decisions, delivering “the judgment and voice of the General Conference,” while
reserving the most important matters to the GC Session, “the highest authority
that God has upon the earth,” whose judgment is definitive. 38
2.
Invalid
Ordinations Criteria for ordination have
always been set by the world Church.39 The 1990 GC Session considered at length
whether or not to permit female pastors to be ordained and took a definite
action: “we do not approve ordination of women to the
gospel ministry.” 40 Proposals came to both the 1995 and 2015 GC
Sessions to allow regional variation at the division or
union level of the gender-limited policy, but both were rejected.41 It is incorrect to assert that there is nothing in
denominational policy to stop unions from ordaining females to gospel ministry.
Such ordinations have been explicitly disallowed by a
GC Session action, a decision reinforced by two other GC Session votes.
3.
Credentialing
Practices GC Working Policy stipulates that
the ministerial credential will be “Issued to ministerial employees who have
demonstrated a divine call to ministry and have been ordained to the gospel
ministry” (E 5 10, paragraph 1. a.). GC Working Policy further mandates that a
commissioned minister credential be issued to certain types of church workers
“unless they hold ministerial credentials” (E 5 10, paragraph 2. a.), which
means that workers holding ministerial credentials are not to receive
commissioned minister credentials; and it also states: “Licensed ministers are
on the path toward ordination to the gospel ministry” (E 05 10, paragraph 3.),
which invalidates the award of a ministerial license to one who has been
ordained. Pertinent principles in Church policy that relate to credentials and
licenses, and the world Church actions associated with them, are dealt with in
detail in the Study (pp 34-37) and are summarized below. First, a statement
approved by the GC Executive Committee in 1930, then embodied in GC Working
Policy, sets out a foundational principle: “any shadow of uncertainty in the
matter of what ministerial credentials stand for in one field reflects a shadow
upon all credentials, and is a matter of general denominational concern.”42 If
there is any question about what policies actually stipulate about credentials,
it then becomes a matter for the GC Executive Committee. 13 A second foundational
principle is that ordination in Adventist ecclesiology and practice is undoubtedly
for life, except in wholly unusual circumstances. Ministerial credentials are not
necessarily held for life, but where there is a change
in credential, it is because a pastor has moved into a line of work that is
distinctly not pastoral or spiritual and it does not affect his ordination.
Ministerial credentials can be restored if the line of work alters. 43 Thus, the type of work a pastor does is temporary, but
ordination is permanent. It can only become void as a result of
disciplinary action. If a pastor’s status could be changed by administrators,
there would be potential for abuse of power. Instead, it can be revoked only
for apostasy or moral failings. In all
other circumstances, ordination is for life, and cannot be given up on
individual impulse. The only circumstances in which Adventist Church policy or
practice countenances a change of credential for an ordained pastor is if he
leaves pastoral work (temporarily or permanently), suffers
a moral fall or apostatizes, or resigns. If these do not apply, then
the existing provisions of GC Working Policy (as analyzed above) prevail:
“ministerial employees who . . . have been ordained to the gospel ministry” are
to be issued with ministerial credentials, but neither commissioned minister
credentials nor ministerial licenses are to be issued to church workers who
have been ordained. If pastors qualify for ministerial credentials, they must
receive them, rather than another credential or license. GC Working Policy
excludes any other possibility. Some church members may perhaps feel that
credentials are merely procedural matters. However, all deviations from GC
Working Policy are of concern to the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a whole.
In meetings of the GC Executive Committee, the world Church has deliberated and
established common policies for all. While GC Working Policy allows variation
from established polices, this requires “prior approval from the General
Conference Executive Committee” (B 15 10, paragraph 1.). If unions wish to vary
mutually-agreed rules for managing the pastorate, they should raise the matter
in the appropriate forum.
4.
Summing
Up Ellen G White posed a question to
church members 135 years ago that bears repeating: “What are we doing to
preserve unity in the bonds of peace?”44 All the matters surveyed in this
section are ones on which the world Church has pronounced a series of clear
decisions by Annual Councils or GC Sessions. Action taken without counsel or
contrary to counsel distracts from mission and leads to disunity. What does
this mean for us as Seventh-day Adventists? The New Testament model is one of
collaborative decision-making and of diversity allowed only by joint agreement.
Seventh-day Adventist Church governance has, for many years, reflected this
biblical pattern. Consultation among a large leadership group that is
representative of the body of believers is a key Seventh-day Adventist
principle in dealing with important matters. Another is
the principle of reciprocity. Where there is input into decision-making
and all parties have discussed and deliberated in good faith, the final
decision must be accepted by all 14 those who had input into making it. This is
fundamental. In a representative and consultative process we have to accept all
decisions, both good and bad, remembering that, in others’ eyes, our
perceptions of these may be reversed. As Ellen White counseled a discontented
church member, shortly after the General Conference was founded: “You should
have submitted to the judgment of the church. If they decided wrong, God could
take hold of this matter in His own time and vindicate the right.” 45 If
everyone were to defy decisions they disagreed with, there would be no point in
having a decision-making process. To take part in a process, and then to
disregard it if it does not go our way, is contrary to the biblical principles
of unity and mutual submission. Equality and unity in
Christ oblige church members and church leaders to make decisions together and
then to respect fellow brothers and sisters in Jesus by following those
decisions. Communities can only function if all members agree they will accept
communal decisions; otherwise there is not community, but disunity. If a
GC Session—or, in certain areas of responsibility, the GC Executive Committee—
permits variations from voted policies, we must accept that verdict. But where
it does not, we must accept that decision also. The
Theology of Ordination Study Committee’s meetings in 2013-2014 were the
culmination of a worldwide study process. Voices from around the
world and from all sides were heard; the arguments and supporting documents of
all perspectives were made freely available online to church members for their
own study and prayerful consideration. The process was unmatched in both
breadth and depth.46 When a GC Session takes a
decision about ordination, especially after such a process, it cannot be
disregarded.
VI.
Conclusion
We have seen our Savior’s
heartfelt desire that His disciples be united; the apostles’ teachings on
unity; the New Testament principle of collective decision-making by the body of
believers, with diversity of practice permitted when all agree to it; and the
Spirit of Prophecy’s powerful endorsement of Jesus’s plea for unity, consistent
evocation of the authority of the General Conference, and admonitions against
unilateral action. All these indicate very clearly how Seventh-day Adventists
should relate to each other and how the Remnant Church should conduct itself.
We would do well to look to the wider principles of interconnectedness and
interdependence which have been the basis for 150 years of powerful
proclamation of the gospel and prophetic truth, of extraordinary service to
humanity, and of remarkable growth. Ellen G White appeals to church leaders:
“Labor in harmony with one another, even though you are not alike . . . Do not
say that because your brethren differ with you in some particular, you cannot
stand by their side in service.” She goes on to affirm: “We are commanded to
love one another as Christ has loved us. . . . And our love for one another is
to make us willing to sacrifice our feelings and ideas if by so doing we can
help them.” 47 15 Ellen White here draws attention to Jesus’s prayer that His
followers be characterized by their love for each other and to the need for us
to make sacrifices for the unity that He desires for us. But here, too, as so
often in her writings, she writes of “harmony”—a musical figure of speech. The
Bible tells us that earthly history as we know it will end in music—when “those
who have the victory over the beast,” drawn from all nations and races, will
gather “on the sea of glass” and “sing the song of Moses and the song of the
Lamb” (Rev 15: 2-3, NKJV). The most beautiful music is polyphonic, in which a
number of parts, each forming an individual melody, harmonize with each other.
There is not merely a place for diversity; it is essential in creating a
greater, more beautiful whole. But it is thoughtful diversity, each part
composed and performed with awareness of, sensitivity to, and in harmony with
every other part. If a melody is added unilaterally, it can all too easily
result in dissonance. Acting unilaterally undermines the harmony that Christ
desires for the Church. Ellen White, writing on John 17, makes this promise to
God’s people: “When we strive for this unity as God desires us to strive for
it, it will come to us.”48 If we—all of us—involve ourselves totally in the
mission and ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, in ways appropriate
to our different spiritual gifts; if we enthusiastically endeavor to make
disciples, teaching them to obey all that Christ commanded (Matt 28:20); if we
gladly bear with each other, putting aside whatever grievances we may have
against others, forgiving as the Lord forgives us (Col 3:13); if we ardently
strive to “be one” with our brothers and sisters as Christ is one with the
Father, and to embody in our relations with fellow church members, Christ’s
love for His Father and His people (John 17:22-23)—then this unity that “God
desires us to strive for,” the unity Christ prayed for, the unity God desires
for His people, “will come to us.”
1 All
biblical quotations are from the NIV, unless otherwise indicated. 2
Quotations from Ellen G White are cited, in the first instance, to the original
letter or manuscript, including title or recipients and date, where these are
known, and to any publications during her lifetime. Subsequent references are
to the published text (if any), or to letter/manuscript in abbreviated form.
Modern compilations are not cited, because all the writings of the Spirit of
Prophecy, even previously unpublished letters and manuscripts, are now
available online at https://egwwritings.org.
3 Ellen
G White, Testimonies for the Church, 9 vols. (orig. eds., 1885-1909; 4th ed.,
Mountain View, Calif: Pacific Press, 1948), 5:236. 4
Ibid., 237. 5 Ibid., 239. 6 White,
“An Appeal to the Brethren in Battle Creek,” 1898, in Testimonies, 8:80. 7 Ellen
G White to J Edson and Emma White, January 22, 1902, Letter 8, 1902. 8 Ellen
G White, “One with Christ in God,” Dec. 31, 1903, MS 149, 1903; published in
The Southern Watchman 13.5, “One with Christ in God” (Feb. 2, 1904): 73, and
immediately republished in Testimonies, 8:239 9 White,
Testimonies, 8:240. 10 Ellen
G White, “Found Wanting,” April 21, 1903, MS 32, 1903; published in
Testimonies, 8: 251. 16 11 Cf.
“An Appeal and Appreciation to all Church Entities and Members from the General
Conference and Division Officers Regarding the 2015 General Conference Session
Vote on Ordination,” recorded (not voted as an action) by Annual Council, Oct.
11, 2015, in GCC Minutes, 2015:102–103. 12
“Mission Statement of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” WP A 05 05. 13 E.g.,
Ellen G White, “Rebellion Within the Ranks,” MS 1, 1865; “Testimony Concerning
Moses Hull and Wife, Also Brother Whitney,” MS 6, 1862; “Regarding James White
as a Laborer,” MS 4, 1866; “Testimony Regarding a Young Licentiate in
Minnesota,” MS 8, 1883; “Treatment of the Erring,” MS 11, 1888; “Instruction
Regarding Church Discipline,” MS 61, 1902; White to Brother and Sister Scott,
July 6, 1863, Letter 5, 1863; White to Brethren Atwood and Pratt, May 28, 1890
Letter 1c, 1890. 14 Ellen
G White, The Acts of the Apostles (orig. ed., 1911; Mountain View, Calif. &
Oshawa, Ont.: Pacific Press, n.d.), 87. 15
Ibid., 89; cf. Acts 6: 2–7. See Mark A. Finley, “Toward Unity in the Body of
Christ,” presented to the Theology of Ordination Study Committee, Columbia,
Md., Jan. 24, 2014, https://www.adventist
archives.org/toward-unity-in-the-body-of-christ.pdf. 16
White, Acts of the Apostles, 190. 17 See
Acts 15:6, 22-23 and cf. White, Acts of the Apostles, 190, 196, and 383. 18
White, Acts of the Apostles, 196. 19
Ibid., 197. 20
Ibid., 96. 21
“Statement on Church Polity, Procedures, and the Resolution of Disagreements in
the Light of Recent Actions on Ministerial Ordination,” Annual Council, Oct.
16, 2012, GCC Minutes 2012: 205–208, quotation at 206. 22
Constitution, art. IV. 23 “The
General Conference and Its Divisions,” GCC Minutes, 2012: 68. 24
White, Testimonies, 3:417. 25
Ibid., 428. 26
Ibid., 3:492 27 Ellen
G White, “Board and Council meetings,” n.d., MS 33, 1891; “Relation of the G.
C. Committee to Business Interests,” n.d., MS 33, 1895; “Concerning the Review
and Herald Publishing Association,” Oct. 12, 1895, MS 57, 1895; To Brother and
Sister Waggoner, Aug. 26, 1898, Letter 77, 1898; comments in the 1901 GC
Session, in “General Conference Proceedings,” General Conference Bulletin 4,
extra, no. 1 (April 3, 1901): 25; “Consumers, but not Producers,” April 25,
1901, MS 35 and “Talk by Mrs. E. G. White in College Library, April 1, 1901,”
MS 43, 1901. 28
White, MS 33, 1891; “General Conference Proceedings,” 26; MS 43, 1901; “Talk of
Mrs. E. G. White, before representative brethren, in the College Library, April
1, 1901,” MS 43a, 1901; cf. “Regarding Work of General Conference,” Apr. 3,
1903, MS 26, 1903; Testimonies, 8: 232–33, 236–37. See Study Document, pp.
22–25. 29
White, Testimonies, 9:260. 30
Ibid., 260–61 31
Ibid., 260. 32
White, Acts of the Apostles, 163–64; repr. in Gospel workers: Instruction for
all who are “Laborers together with God” (Washington, DC: Review and Herald,
1915), 443. This passage is not in the first edition of Gospel workers (1892). 33 White
to “Brother Laborers at Lausanne,” n.d., Letter 66, 1886. 34
White, Testimonies, 9:187. 17 35 White
to Brother Church, March 21, 1888, Letter 33a, 1888. 36
White, Testimonies, 9:257. 37
Ibid., 5:236. 38
Unless/until it takes an action changing course. This has happened, though
rarely, in our history. Perhaps the best known episode of a Session reversing
itself, in the 1870s, is analyzed in depth by Kevin M. Burton, “Centralized for
Protection: George I. Butler and His Philosophy of One-person Leadership,”
unpublished MA thesis (Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews
University 2015). 39 See
“Unions and Ordination,” GC Secretariat Statement (Aug. 2015), available at
https://www. adventistarchives.org/unions-and-ordination-statement.pdf ; David
Trim, “The Ordination of Women in Seventh-day Adventist Policy and Practice, up
to 1972,” paper presented to the Theology of Ordination Study Committee,
Linthicum Heights, MD, July 22, 2013
(https://www.adventistarchives.org/theordination-of-women-in-seventh-day-adventist-policy-and-practice.pdf),
1–2, 6–7, 9–11, 24. 40 On
the proposal to the 41st (1881) Session, which has been misunderstood and
misrepresented, see Trim, “Ordination of Women,” 12–17. For the 55th (1990)
Session action, July 11, 1990, see GCC Minutes, 1990:1039–40, http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Minutes/GCC/GCC1990-07.pdf.
41
Fifty-sixth Session, July 5, 1995, minutes in Adventist Review, 172/33, (July
11, 1995): 30; 60th Session, July 8, 2015, 72–73, https://www.adventistarchives.org/general-conference-business-sessiontranscript,-wednesday-pm,-july-8,-2015.pdf.
42
“Statement on Ordination to the Ministry and Ministerial Credentials,” GCC,
April 3, 1930, “General Conference Committee Proceedings,” vol. 13:1122–1123,
quotation at 1123. This wording appears in policy currently: WP L 60 10. 43 This
is expressed in several Annual Council actions and embodied in GC Working
Policy: Autumn Council, Oct. 21, 1938, “General Conference Committee
Proceedings,” vol. 15:894; Autumn Council, Oct. 27, 1942, “General Conference
Committee Proceedings,” vol. 16:661; Annual Council, Oct. 16, 1975, GCC
Minutes, 1975: 408–9; WP E 50 (p. 248). See also Study Document, 34–35. 44
White, Testimonies, 5:239 (quoted above, p. 2). 45 White
to Brother and Sister Scott, July 6, 1863 (the quoted statement was specifically
directed to Sister Scott), Letter 5, 1863. 46 See
Trim, “Ordination of Women,” 22–23. 47 Ibid.
48
White, Testimonies, 8:243.