Come now to another phase of administrative work which I believe is very important, and in which I find more or less misunderstanding. I refer to instructed delegations. The question has been raised, Why do we not follow the practice, as in political conventions, of sending delegates with instructions, pledged to vote in certain ways? Would it be proper for a large, influential church sending a large number of delegates to a conference, first to instruct that delegation and pledge them to vote as instructed, thus attempting to control the actions of the conference session? Should the officers of a church attempt to instruct or control the votes of a church delegation?
These are not hypothetical questions. I have been present at sessions where such procedure was in evidence. On one occasion when attending a local conference session, I soon discovered that there was a group of delegates present from a large church, who evidently had been called together before they came to the session and instructed as to how they were to vote. When I arose to speak on a point, a delegate from this group arose and challenged my right to speak. I was a stranger to him, and knew there was not anything personal in his objection. I did not argue with him, but turned to the chairman and asked him to let the whole delegation vote on the question of whether as a representative of the General Conference I had a right to speak to a delegated body of Seventh-day Adventists. The chairman arose and put that question to a vote. They voted that I had the right to speak, and in a manner which gave that instructed group of delegates to understand that their course of action was thoroughly disapproved. They knew from the way that vote was registered that they were regarded as out of order.
Impropriety of Political Methods
Political methods do not fit the needs of the church. The methods of the church cannot be patterned after earthly institutions. There is a clear distinction between them. We ought to help make that distinction clear. One of the charges against the leaders in olden times was that they had made no distinction between that which was holy and that which was profane or secular. We should not go to the world or to political institutions for our pattern in carrying on the Lord's work.
Political parties may send instructed delegates to their conventions, for their purpose is to have their candidates win at any cost. But delegates from our churches to a conference session do not represent parties or factions.
They come together with their fellow delegates from all the churches to seek the Lord for divine guidance, then to lay plans for the work, and to vote as they may be led by the Spirit of God. Instead of placing themselves under the orders of those who for selfish reasons may be seeking to control their votes, they should remember that they are to place themselves under the direction of the Spirit of God.
You will recall that in the council of the apostolic church, the Holy Ghost approved of the delegates' actions. "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things." Acts 15:28. Local conferences should not send instructed delegates to a union conference session, nor should a union conference send instructed delegates to the sessions of the General Conference.
Right to Freedom of Expression
Some years ago, while serving as president of a union conference, I was called to attend a local conference session. At that time, we had an important plan for assisting a certain institution in our union. The General Conference had joined us in the development of the plan, and all who had a part in it looked upon it as very necessary and urgent. It was my responsibility as union conference leader to present the plan to the delegates at this meeting. Following my statement, a delegate arose and made a speech in opposition to the plan. He was very earnest and eloquent in his opposition, using every argument he could command against the plan, and then climaxed his speech by declaring that he supposed he would "lose his head" for making that speech, but that he could not do otherwise and be true to his convictions. I hastened to assure him publicly that he would not "lose his head" for making the speech.
Should a man's position in the cause of God be jeopardized because he has courage enough to express his convictions or to differ with a leader ? I should dislike to think that this principle obtains in connection with our work. That man made his speech in the right place and at the right time. Whether he was right in his argument, mattered not. It was not directed against me personally. It was not a question of whether he agreed with me, or looked at the matter in the right light. The important thing was that as a delegate he had a right to express his conviction without fear of consequences.
That should always be a fundamental principle in carrying forward our administrative work. I sometimes hear it said that men fear to express themselves. They fear to differ with the leader because of the possible consequences it might have upon their future standing in the work. But I am more afraid of that feeling in the minds of men, than I am of what men will say when they differ with me in expressing their convictions. I am afraid of any leader who will not fully grant his fellow workers the fullest freedom of expression.
As a leader, my duty was plain in the case I have cited, and that was to see that that delegate was protected in his right to disagree with me. I believe that any leader who endeavors to bring undue pressure or discipline, or punishment upon any one, because that person has the courage to express his convictions, should be asked to retire to some other line of work. The large majority of delegates on the occasion referred to voted for the plan, despite that man's speech of opposition. Then what did he do? He accepted the vote of the brethren and made no further opposition. That also was a right principle. But, while the question was under consideration, he had a right to express himself as he did. A plan that cannot endure opposition should not be adopted. A leader whose plans are adopted only if opposition is suppressed and the rights of delegates curtailed, is not worthy of occupying a place as leader.
Principle and Policy Distinguished
On the other hand, a leader should not be criticized and regarded as out of place for suggesting plans and speaking in defense of them. If a leader has been selected for an office because of training and experience in dealing with administrative problems and a grasp of facts and conditions probably greater than that of others, his advice and opinion should carry great weight.
There are three kinds of opposition: Opposition from lack of experience; opposition by the uninformed; and opposition by those who are afflicted with an idea that seems to exist in the world, that whatever the leader does is wrong, and therefore ought to be opposed. That spirit should not prevail in the church, even though it does widely exist in the world. The experience of Moses in being opposed by Korah, Dathan, and Abiram is an illustration of the danger in such opposition.
Every leader should be able to distinguish between principle and policy. Principles are based on revealed truth. For instance, Sabbathkeeping is based on revealed truth as contained in the fourth commandment, and illustrated in the life and teachings of Jesus. Principles cannot be set aside without compromise. Policies, on the other hand, have to do with plans and methods. These may be changed in order to secure general agreement and cooperation. We should not make the mistake of trying to turn our plans into principles, and expecting everyone to regard them as such.
We should therefore be able to distinguish between principle and policy, and not become contentious in our endeavor to uphold what we think is principle, when it is merely a question as to which is better, this or that. When a body of delegates has adopted certain plans and policies, all should feel under obligation to carry them out. No one should feel At liberty to set aside such plans. If for at y good reason they are found to be unworkable or unprofitable, request should be made for reconsidering them.
Committees and Their Place
In our plan of administration, committees have a very important place. A conference executive committee is elected by the conference session. A large group of delegates cannot remain constantly in session. Consequently they delegate certain powers to the executive committee. These powers are defined in the constitution and bylaws of the conference organization. The president of the conference is always a member of the committee, and also its chairman. Between sessions of the conference, the executive committee functions in all administrative matters. The same plan of administration is followed in union conferences. The presidents of all local conferences within the union and the departmental secretaries of the union conference are members ex officio of the union conference executive committee.
Again, in the case of the General Conference, the Executive Committee is the body that carries on between sessions the administrative work of the church throughout the world. The General Conference Executive Committee carries on its work within clearly defined limitations, as set forth in its constitution, bylaws, and working policy. And in general, the work of an institutional board corresponds to that of an executive committee. These institutional boards are elected at sessions of their constituencies.
The election of properly qualified men to serve on all committees and boards is of utmost importance. Those who are contentious and self-willed, or who give evidence of being unconverted, are not qualified to carry forward the Lord's work by serving on a board or committee. It is the duty of a conference committee to develop the ministry and to train workers, to plan for groups of evangelistic workers to labor together in soul-winning work, to look after the spiritual welfare of the churches and arrange for their pastoral supervision. Consequently this committee should be made up for the most part of men who are experienced along these lines. It is desirable to select one or two lay brethren to serve on the conference committee, provided they are men of proper qualifications. It is not Scriptural, nor has experience proved it to be wise, to have a conference committee made up entirely of lay members.
In carrying forward the administrative work of the conference there is frequent need for the appointment of subcommittees to study specific problems and develop plans. If the president is asked to appoint such committees, he will therein reveal his qualities as a leader. Should he appoint on such committees only those who will carry out his plans or biddings ?—Certainly not. That would be poor leadership. To have his own plans always carried out would very likely result in weakness. Committees should be appointed in such a way that different opinions may be expressed, and that the problems may be examined from different points of view. Plans worked out by committees so made up will in the end prove much more effective.
__ To be continued in August
