Tag: Issues

Posted on

Further Thoughts On Restructure of Our Divisions

This union of churches idea is interesting to me. It appears as though it simply eliminates the conference level and with it a lot of expense. There definitely seems to be an upside with what looks like a lot of cost savings.

However, I wonder about the ramifications of such a move. Will such a move effectively eliminate the voice of the layperson from directing the church. I mean now, the conference is elected by lay people and the workers in a conference. However, will eliminating the conference level leave those lay people, and workers who are not politically powerful, from the table of decision making? Is such a move the best?

It is true that the discussions and decisions have to be made on how this will work, but I do wonder about whether the average pastor and average lay person will have as much say in the leading of these Union of Churches and in the leading of their local conference.

For that reason alone, I wonder if the elimination of the Union level might be brought to the table as a cost saving device as well. How many of us even interact with out union officials. We do see the conference officials often, but the union? Division, GC?

I’m all for monetary savings and am not philosophically against restructure, but I do think we need to be very careful about how we consolidate power. If done in the wrong way, we will never be able to get it back.

Posted on

The Conference Level And Re-Structure At General Conference 2010

I thought it interesting that the last Adventist News Network is reporting that

The revised Church Manual also introduces a glossary of frequently used terms, including a definition of “union of churches,” a church governance structure in which a group of local congregations reports directly to a union, eliminating the conference or mission level of administration. Delegates will approve several recently formed unions of churches at Session, as well as consider whether to expand the structure’s use.

As Samuele Thomas Sr. used to say when he preached…”Did you Get it? or Did You Miss it?”

Eliminating the Conference Level

Yes there seems to be talk about eliminating the conference level altogether. Now if you are a loyal reader of SabbathPulpit.Com, this would not have taken you by surprise. We talked about this four years ago in 2006. I discussed Harold Lee’s article on this page.

I talked about the annual council when this came up at this link. That article also has a pdf document of the different proposals for structural change.

In this article, I looked at 5 different options talked about in that document.

Finally, I talked about what structural change might mean for the regional (black) conferences at this link.

Well, it is here folks. There will be discussion about a so-called “union of Churches” which is simply a union conference. There is talk about eliminating the conference level.

Can We Afford Both Levels?

To be honest, I think that we can no longer afford nor do we need both the local conference and the union conference levels. It is a throwback to an earlier era. My only concern is that the members of the local church still retain its ability to affect and vote for its local leadership whether that be a “Union of Churches” or a “Conference.” This re-structuring cannot be a way to remove the ability of the member to participiate in the choosing of the direction of the local church and the level right above the local church.

But after having said that, there is a lot of duplicate leaders and offices that really need trimming. I mean do we really need a religious liberty director at the conference level? Don’t all the hard cases go up to the Union anyway? Do we really need the local conference Sabbath School leader? And if we do need both of them, how about a union leader and his staff, and then a conference leader and a regional conference leader if it is in the east. No we need restructuring.

I Hope This Is Not Simply A Power Grab

I suspect a lot of tentative decisions and discussions have taken place on this subject. It is my only hope that whatever happens, it will not amount to simply a power-grab by a few leaders, but it will be a principled decision for the good of our World Church by people at all levels of the church including the local conference and local church levels.

Posted on

The Impossibility of Separating Doctrine From Life

Many Christians separate doctrine from their daily lives. This idea is manifested in the idea of “doctrine is less important than relationship.” Some who each this argue that doctrine is good and fine, but a personal, vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ is more important. This is the common way that this is taught. We hear about how Adventists know too much doctrine, but don’t know the Man behind the doctrine.

There is definitely value in reminding people that the Christian walk is not merely a thing of the “head,” but it is also a thing of the “heart.” I think this is a part of what these sisters and brothers are preaching when they push this idea, but it has the side effect of making people think that a proper and good relationship to God can be obtained devoid of doctrinal understanding. Often little definition is given for this “relationship with Jesus” beyond a comparison to a friendship.

This idea makes doctrine something that is “nice to know.” It is not important or even valuable. It is an impediment. What this view misses however is the is a valid definition of doctrine. Doctrine is not esoteric, useless, or irrelevant facts. Doctrine is simply codifying our understanding of God. Certainly it will change as we learn more, but it is simply not possible to not have doctrine. We may have a doctrine we have not thought about much. We may have doctrinal understandings that center in irrelevancy, or we may have doctrinal understandings that focus totally on things that are relevant to daily lives. We simply cannot dispense of doctrine.

While it is true that having a growing connection to the Divine life is more important than merely knowing about the Most High, it is also true that one cannot fully separate our learning about God from our real relationship to God.

In short, if you are growing in your relationship with your wife, would you stop learning about your wife? Will you get to a point that you no longer study to find out what makes her happy? Do you stop learning about her using the tools you have access to? How is that any different from learning all you can about God?

Ultimately it is a false dichotomy. You will not be growing in this “relationship with Jesus” if you have no desire to grow in your knowledge of Jesus Christ (Doctrine). In fact, how can you even know the difference between the false Jesus and the true Jesus unless you have some kind of learning to back it up. I know my wife immediately from her voice, from the way she looks, and from the things she does. How is it that I can be ready for the last day when God will have a people who “follow the lamb withersoever he goest.” (Revelation 14:4) If I marginalize or put down the very pursuit of knowledge of what Jesus is doing and will do in this world and in my own life.

In short, the separation of doctrine from life is not a viable position. The true position is to live out your doctrine. Live out your understanding of God. We don’t have to choose between putting an ephemeral and undefined “relationship with Jesus” above our understanding of Jesus. Neither do we have to choose to ignore doctrine altogether while glorifying this disconnected idea of “relationship.” We can go another road that is a doctrinally informed and lived life that is empowered by a growing relationship with the Most High.