The mood of our day seems to carry with it a certain distinction—if not admiration—for the person who attacks the Establishment and traditional methods of operating. No doubt the emphasis on research, the thirst for knowledge, and new methods of analysis that characterize the modern world have contributed to bringing about this condition. Nor is it without its merits. Nevertheless, this situation has also intensified the pressure on pastors and conference officials to yield to rationalization in arriving at decisions. Unless such pressure is resisted, we will find ourselves tending to make the decision that will create the least reverberations and that will put us in the best light with our constituents or members.
Although the English words decide or decision can be found in only two places in the King James Version of Scripture (1 Kings 20:40; Joel 3:14), the idea of making decisions can be found in numerous passages. For example, after weighing many philosophies and approaches to the preaching of the gospel, Paul came to a decision. He said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2). I propose that all decision-making by ministers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church ought to be based upon Paul's decision; all we do and say must reflect a commitment to Jesus Christ. If we know Him and put Him first, it will affect all our decisions. Paramount in the lives of all Seventh-day Adventist decision makers must be a relationship with Jesus Christ that enables one to transcend merely human wisdom, with its often fallible, ineffective decisions. Speaking of leadership, Ellen White says: "Without divine wisdom, their own spirit will be woven into the decisions they make. If these men are not in communication with God, Satan will surely be one in their councils and will take advantage of their unconsecrated state."—Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 560.
Such decision-making is becoming increasingly difficult for church administrators, whether pastor or president. More and more, we live in a world of escalating conflict and differing opinions, a world of competing special interests. Even within the church we find these pressures, which result from the wide variance in education, experience, and expertise among church members. Most of these individuals are truly sincere in believing that the way of their special interest is best for the church. But the faithful and honest administrator must look beyond these special interests; he must survey the whole field and look objectively at the entire situation. Then, after sincerely seeking divine guidance, he must have the courage to make a decision in the best interests of the whole church, based on the facts as he understands them. It is much easier, of course, to make decisions based on what will be most readily accepted and least disturbing. But as men and women called of God, we cannot follow such a course.
We have been greatly favored, as a church, by the special messages that have come to us from God. This divine commentary outlines, often in detail, certain procedures and principles that the church must follow in its promulgation of the gospel. One of our greatest dangers is the tendency to rationalize our decisions in harmony with the easiest course, rather than to face, by faith, the course of action dictated by the Spirit of the Lord, even it it appears impossible. It is so easy to make decisions in harmony with what seems reasonable to us even if in doing so we must ignore God's explicit instruction. Objectivity is such a rare quality that most of us exercise it only by degrees.
In these decisive times leaders of the church must be exceedingly careful that their decisions are not contrary to a "Thus saith the Lord." It is not easy, at all times and in all circumstances, to determine whether there is indeed a "Thus saith the Lord." It seems to me that Spirit-filled inspiration, as we trace its working through the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, has at least two phases. The first deals with the nature of God's plans, the nature of His righteousness, and the holiness of His character, often expressed in principles of right and wrong. In the second phase, these righteous principles are often reflected in methods. Methods of achieving these enduring principles may not be relevant for all time. God's principles never change, but His methods of achieving these principles in a changing world are always subject to change.
Ellen White often laid down methods (which I believe were inspired counsel), the hidden principles of which we must search to discover. For example, she instructed the conferences in her day to move camp meetings from place to place—from city to city—each year. The early camp meetings were largely evangelistic in nature, and this was a method of achieving the God-given plan of evangelizing the cities. Today we may need to achieve that same goal of evangelizing the cities by other methods. The God-given principles stand fast, but the methods change. Of course, this in no way depreciates the inspiration of the counsel given as methods for an earlier day.
How can the dedicated church leader who sincerely tries to make decisions based on "Thus saith the Lord" actually deter mine what God's will is for a particular situation? How is he to interpret inspired writings? I am going to venture into the hazardous task of listing a few brief principles of hermeneutics for the Spirit of Prophecy. Most of these would also be applicable to the interpretation of Scripture, but they are by no means exhaustive.
1. It must be affirmed and recognized that the whole body of the Spirit of Prophecy is God-inspired and carries full authority.
2. The reader must approach these writings with as much objectivity as possible.
3. The common meaning and usage of words in the days in which they were written must be considered.
4. Statements must always be read in context.
5. Each statement must be interpreted in the light of all that Ellen White wrote on that given subject.
6. Conditions existing when the counsel was given must be a factor in any interpretive application.
7. The underlying principles behind certain recommended methods must be determined.
8. It must be determined whether the method and the principle are inseparable. Often this can be done only by knowing the historical setting.
9. It must be determined whether the passage under consideration is specific instruction to a particular individual or a group in which time and place, circumstances and conditions, make the instruction of limited rather than general application.
10. Look carefully at the idealism expressed in the principles; then deter mine whether the prophet, in the application, allowed a balance dictated by a pragmatic approach. I believe that a study of both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy would, on occasion, reveal a beautiful balance between idealism and pragmatism.
Having concluded what the proper decision should be, a church leader needs the fortitude to follow his conviction. The quality most needed in this day of pressures and pressure groups is courage. I do not mean physical courage, but the kind of courage that enables a man or a woman to face up to responsibilities and to take a stand when the situation requires it. A lack of this type of courage often rules out many otherwise well-qualified persons from leadership positions. More executives fail because they lack the courage to make unpopular, but right, decisions than fail for a lack of technical knowledge or expertise.
Sometimes it is the failure to make am1 decision that casts a cloud over a person's leadership. In general, people are hesitant to make decisions; it seems to be more comfortable to rest in indecision. Procrastination in decision-making is a disease of far too many church leaders. Some act as if problems will go away without a decision having to be made if given enough time. But the price of leadership demands the risk of decision-making. A leader must at times stake his future on bold, just, and equitable decisions. Ellen White wrote to one individual: "Much may be done in training the mind to overcome indolence. There are times when caution and great deliberation are necessary; rashness would be folly. But even here, much has been lost by too great hesitancy. Caution, up to a certain point, is required; but hesitancy and policy on particular occasions have been more disastrous than would have been a failure through rashness. My brother, you need to cultivate promptness. Away with your hesitating manner. . . . Your slowness of decision in connection with the cause and work of God is sometimes painful. It is not at all necessary. Prompt and decisive action may accomplish great results. . . . The ability to do business with dispatch, and yet do it thoroughly, is a great acquisition."—Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 498, 499.
Leaders in God's church today need to make clear decisions with dispatch. They need to decide issues, not on the basis of expediency or of pressures brought to bear upon them, but from a conviction that the decision reached is in harmony with God's will and that it is the right one for the success of His total work. The following questions, applied to our decision-making, may help us to be that kind of leader:
1. Has God spoken on the subject, and have 1 searched the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy for information that may affect my decision?
2. Have I sought God in prayer, that my decision may be made in the light of God's will and in fairness to my brethren?
3. If my decision is based upon specific spiritual counsel, do I have the faith to believe God will act, providentially if necessary, to vindicate His Word?
4. Is my decision in any way a compromise of principle?
5. Will my decision be in harmony with the best interests of God's church and His people?
6. Is this decision made in the light of the golden rule?
7. Will my decision be a just one to all concerned?
8. Is my decision in any way affected by personal or selfish interests, desire for popularity, favor, or financial remuneration?
9. Am I making a decision to the benefit of special-interest groups merely to avoid criticism?
10. Is my decision punitive without just cause?
11. Can I maintain self-respect with such a decision?
12. Will this decision bring lasting and permanent results, or will it bring only temporary relief?
13. Has personal bias entered into my decision?
14. Is this decision made to bolster and fortify my hobby horse rather than being based on available evidence?
15. Is my decision based upon adequate research, with all the facts of the issue openly and objectively considered?
16. Is my decision influenced by peer pressure?
17. Have I examined the evidence to see that my assessment of facts is strictly honest?
18. Is my decision influenced by cultural or racial biases?
19. Will this decision stand the acid test of exposure or publicity and still be considered objective?
20. Is my decision made from a soft heart that shrinks from offending people, rather than adhering to strict integrity?
21. Is this decision necessary to the advancement of the project?
22. Would another method or another course of action be equally as good as mine ? Could I bring greater unity by an alternate method?
23. Would my decision be unnecessarily divisive?
24. Is this decision made primarily to show my authority?
25. Am I willing to face the possible consequences of my decision?
26. Have I chosen counselors or appointed individuals to a decision-making committee because of their bias in my direction or their willingness to inflate my ego?