Annual Council—1984

Ministry Reports: Annual Council—1984

This year's Annual Council dealt with some weighty issues, among them the church's structure, the role of women, and policies for handling the tithe. You can gain a "feel" for the proceedings by reading our report.

By the staff of Ministry

 

For the first time in its history, MINISTRY is presenting a major report of Annual Council, the most important session of the Seventh-day Adventist Church other than the quinquennial General Conference session. Our reason for presenting this report is simple. We believe that the ministers of the church should be as fully informed as possible about the policies of the church and how policy decisions are made.

We think you will find our report not only informative but interesting. We'd like you to feel like you were right there listening as major issues were discussed and voted. We'd like you to sense not only the "what" of actions taken but also the "how" and "why." We've tried to be as objective as possible, and have focused our attention on those areas of most interest to pastors and local leaders. (We have not attempted to report on every item discussed.)

So, what is Annual Council?

By definition it is a meeting of the General Conference Executive Commit tee "held annually for the purpose of considering budgets from the fields and making appropriations, and for the transaction of other business and the adoption of such policies as may be necessary in the operation of the world wide work." * In function the council serves to assure that decisions affecting the worldwide work can be made between General Conference sessions with adequate input from leaders not stationed at world headquarters in Washington, D.C. Although the Executive Committee meets weekly through out the year (Thursday mornings) at the General Conference office, and also has a Spring Meeting each year, major policy changes are almost always handled at an Annual Council meeting because that is when leaders from around the world are present. Incidentally, all the individuals with voting privileges at the council are called invitees, not delegates, because this is not a constituent meeting, but simply a committee meeting. And many leaders who are not members of the committee are invited to participate in this particular meeting.

The General Conference Executive Committee is composed of all persons elected to the General Conference at the quinquennial General Conference session plus the chief executives of General Conference institutions, union conference presidents, up to 50 other persons elected to serve on the committee, and certain others. A complete list appears in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook each year. Total membership ranges between 340 and 350. Quorum is 15, including a General Conference officer.

Local conference and mission presidents of the host division (usually North America, although the next quinquennium will see two councils in overseas divisions) and certain other invitees such as college and hospital chief executives also attend and vote. Although these invitees are not mentioned in the constitution or bylaws, they have been a part of Annual Council throughout most of the history of the church. As one officer put it, in the beginning the conferences made up the General Conference, not vice versa; when the General Conference met it was the conference presidents who made up the bulk of those attending. Although the practice of inviting local conference presidents was not followed for several years, Robert H. Pierson reinstituted this in 1966. This provision might seem at first glance to give undue representation to the host division. However, all items brought to the floor are first screened by a meeting including all division presidents, a procedure that helps counterbalance the host division's "advantage."

Total attendance at Annual Council this year was about 340 because even though divisions outside the host division usually send only their president, one other officer, and one or two union presidents, other invitees filled the roster.

One item always on the council agenda is the budget for the coming year. It is based on projected giving. Unlike the U.S. Congress, which seems to put off voting a budget in the hopes that the problem will go away, invitees here typically vote the budget on the first day. Perhaps the difference is that this budget is voted on faith. Other items can range in import from reorganizing the divisions of the General Conference to changing a few words in church working policy.

In practice, Annual Council is the final authority of the church between General Conference sessions. It is not a time for initiating new actions, but rather for considering, modifying, and voting for or against actions recommended by various committees, subcommittees, and study groups. A typical reference line for an item presented to the council reads: GCO/GCDOUP83AC/G83AC/16583G/GCDO84AC to KJM-84AC. This "pedigree" indicates that the presented document first went to GCO (General Conference officers), then to GCDOUP83AC (a meeting of General Conference and Division officers and union presidents prior to 1983 Annual Council), then to the 1983 Annual Council with the master agenda control number 165-83G, then to: GCDO84AC (a meeting of General Conference and Division officers prior .to 1984 Annual Council), and was then given to general vice president Kenneth J. Mittleider to present to the 1984 Annual Council for consideration and a vote.

Officers' reports

Each year certain items dominate the agenda at Annual Council. Last year the major item was the merger of two African divisions. This year was no exception: Restructuring of the church, the role of women in ministry, and reprimands of both the "left" and "right" wings within the church were some of the more significant points.

Neal C. Wilson, General Conference president, opened the council with a call to renewal of the covenant. Above his head was the theme for the council— "What Hath God Wrought" and "Even So, Come, Lord Jesus." Elder Wilson reported that the church was on target with its One Thousand Days of Reaping. The world church is averaging 1,034 baptisms a day, totaling some 668,683 accessions since the thousand days began. Membership as of June 30, 1984, is 4,261,116.

The General Conference secretary, Ralph Thompson, and the treasurer, Lance Butler, gave their reports, noting the growth in each of their areas. Butler was pleased to see a reversal of the two-year slide in tithe income. The first six months of 1984 show a 5.61 percent increase as compared with the same period in 1983- Invitees raised questions concerning the seemingly huge indebtedness of Adventist Health Systems— some $940 million. Both Wilson and Don Welch, president of Adventist Health Systems, assured the invitees that while it was a matter of concern, the financial stability of the church was not in danger.

Midway through the morning, Wilson startled some of the invitees by talking about exercise. That morning and in subsequent sessions they were going to try an experiment that if they liked could be used in their committee meetings back home. It consisted of a series of simple exercises set to music that could be done right in one's pew. Dr. Mervyn Hardinge and Stoy Proctor, both from the General Conference Health Department, gave an introduction and explanation. What a sight it was: some 300 people, mostly men, moving to and fro and standing up and sitting down in the Takoma Park church in time to a lively rendition of "Rise, My Soul, and Stretch Thy Wings"! It certainly helped blow away some cobwebs and pump some extra oxygen ta the brain.

The invitees broke for committees that afternoon and evening. Not until Thursday, morning did they begin to discuss one of the main items of the council, one that was subsequently to extend through three days of the six-day session. This was the eagerly awaited report of the Role and Function Com mission.

Role and Function Commission report

Neal C. Wilson introduced the report of the Role and Function Commission—a group that had studied the whole question of the structure and role of the church organization. As part of the study, Wilson himself had looked for job descriptions detailing the positions of General Conference personnel and found few available. While some departments had excellent job descriptions, others were sorely lacking.

Wilson pointed to two recent examples of reductions in large organizations. He noted that the new chief at the American Red Cross reduced the head quarters staff from more than a thousand to 742 without any loss in efficiency. Wilson next referred to a Time magazine article that described how Edward Telling, the chairman of Sears, had brought sweeping changes to that giant retailer. Telling drastically reduced personnel by some 82,000—20 percent of the work force. Then Wilson made his point. A large organization is not our goal. "The reason we exist," he said, "is to serve the i local church and conference."

The commission took a hard look at overlapping functions and the proliferation of the materials funneled to the local church and pastor. A questionnaire was sent to the world field and followed up with personal interviews. Wilson estimated that more than $1.25 million could be saved in personnel at the General Conference. The heaviest criticism concerned the union conferences—and as much of this criticism came from overseas as from North America. Wilson emphasized that "we staunchly defend the unions." At this there were many hearty amens. Then he added, "But maybe [with] a revised role." At this other hearty amens arose.

Part of the report focused on how the church's departments could serve the field more effectively. There are four departments that have weekly impact on the local church—Lay Activities (Personal Ministries), Sabbath School, Stewardship, and Youth. The report recommended combining these four into a Department of Church Ministries. Wilson explained that this would function not as four coordinated departments but as one department and would enable a reduction in personnel. The combination would promote greater efficiency, cutting overlaps both of function and production of materials.

Local pastors and church officers complain about being swamped with the number of programs and the amount of materials they receive from the departments now functioning, the report noted. And on the local level, basically the same people implement the programs of all the departments. As it is now, for instance, Sabbath School and Youth work with the same young people. It makes better sense to have one department serving their various needs.

The invitees began to go through the report page by page. Little discussion took place until they reached Section B, "Authority of Officers," the seventh page of the report. This section is part of the main subdivision of the report entitled "Officers, Departments, and Executive Committee: Administrative System of Governance." Here the church was spelling out its philosophy of government, and this evoked spirited discussion.

It was evident from the interchange that followed that the differences between the "presidential" system and the "committee" system were not clearly understood. Several conference presidents commented that they had learned some things about the structure of the church that they had never understood before.

Fred Thomas, president of the Pennsylvania Conference, asked if the conferences having vice presidents for finance and administration would have to go back to the old system. Wilson replied, "Yes, the committee system is the way we function, not the presidential." Wilson explained that the secretary and the treasurer do not work under the direction of the president, but instead work under the committee. They report directly to the committee.

Others asked how closely conference constitutions were to follow the outline given by the General Conference. It was pointed out that they were not to deviate in crucial areas without prior approval from the next higher level of organization.

Richard Hammill, retired General Conference vice president, stressed that this was a very important document with far-reaching consequences. He asked if it was going to be voted on at the next General Conference session. Wilson replied that some of the concepts would require constitutional changes, and thus it must go to a General Conference session. However, since changing the constitution was always a momentous event, he would rather see an enabling action that would authorize the General Conference to try the changes for the next five years before any changes were made in the constitution.

Thomas J. Mostert, Jr., president of the Southeastern California Conference, asked whether conferences were limited to having only three officers (a president, a treasurer, and a secretary). General vice president Francis Wernick replied in the affirmative, stating that this meant three positions with equal status. But assistant treasurers and associate secretaries are also officers. Ralph Watts, president of the Southern California Conference, expressed a concern that the document be flexible enough to allow for some diversity. In his field they have four officers: a president, a treasurer, and two secretaries of equal rank. One of these secretaries oversees the large ethnic groups in the conference. Wilson replied that the way to deal with this is to have one secretary, but then have vice presidents as needed. A vice president is an officer of the conference who reports to the president. The associate secretaries report to the secretary and the assistant treasurers report to the treasurer. The president, the secretary, and the treasurer report to the conference committee.

B. B. Beach, director of the General Conference Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department, pointed out that departmental directors are elected by the committee; they are not selected by the president, as is the practice in the United States Government. Wernick replied that they were trying to preserve the authority of the committee; it is not just a policy-making body but also an operating body. (See page 25 for the commission's description of the commit tee system.)

Several people spoke on the need to develop, through communication, a better understanding of the church structure. John Fowler, president of the Ohio Conference, suggested that Wilson appoint a committee to define the committee system in greater detail.

The second section of the document that came under careful scrutiny was that concerning the role of the departments. Invitees asked to whom the departmental directors were accountable. This section originally read: "The depart mental directors work under the direction of the executive committee and work in close council with, and assist, the officers in promoting plans and work outlined by the committee." Some objected to the phrase "work under the direction of the executive committee." Wilson- proposed an amendment that would help meet these objections: "The departmental directors are elected by the constituency and therefore work under the direction of the executive commit tee. However, operationally and administratively they are responsible to the president, and assist him and the other officers in promoting plans and work outlined by the committee." This amendment was approved.

The next section that occasioned heavy comment was the proposed reorganization of the Lay Activities (Personal Ministries), Sabbath School, Stewardship, and Youth departments into one department—the Department of Church Ministries.

The president of the Southern Union, Al McClure, stated that they were trying to reduce personnel at their level but were concerned about the effects on the local conference. They felt it would be a tragedy to lose the stewardship work, and the youth particularly need specialists, not generalists. Dr. Leo Van Dolson, of the General Conference Sabbath School Department, was concerned with what he presumed the size of the new department would be. He had counted more than 30 functions to be served by this department, which would be far too many for one departmental director to coordinate.

George Brown, president of the Inter-American Division, started off by saying he favored the objectives of this document and that "your humble servant will support and promote with his usual enthusiasm what this body will vote." However, he wished to see more details as to how this would work in practice. In Inter-America these departments were functioning well; they had no problems. Several more speakers echoed this sentiment. Cyril Miller, president of the Texas Conference, felt that the departments were the genius of our church. He was convinced that the great growth of our church had come through the shared leadership of the departments. He went on to say that the departments often feel second-class because of all the criticism. Our small churches function much better than those of other denominations—they have excellent Sabbath schools— because of the leadership in these departments. We have listened too much to the pastors who knock the departments. Conference departmental directors should be going directly to their counter part at the local level instead of having to go through the pastor.

Up to this point most of the comments spoke against the recommendation that these four departments be combined. Then Walter Scragg, president of the Australasian Division, rose to speak. He was a member of the commission that made the study. The personal interviews he had conducted in various parts of the world had really convinced him of the need for reorganization. Small churches did not have enough people to staff all the positions/departments as presently constituted. It made sense to cut down on the overlapping. Wernick interjected that some had expressed the fear that if these functions were combined some of them would be lost. But down at the local church level many of these functions were not working anyway. And the field is complaining. Regardless of what presidents and overseas leaders might say, the commission repeatedly heard the same criticisms: The church structure involves too much duplication, too much overlapping. These criticisms came just as strongly from overseas as from North America.

Ralph Martin, president of the Nevada-Utah Conference, spoke of how radical and even revolutionary these changes might appear to some. But the commission was simply taking note of changes that were already happening. At one time every church regularly had an MV meeting. Now there is a tension between the Sabbath school and youth departments. There used to be a ten-minute period for lay activities every Sabbath, and the first Sabbath of the month was devoted to this subject. Now these are largely ignored. The church has been organized mainly on a vertical axis—now it seemed to him the proposal was to make it more horizontal. Groupings should be according to age, with one leader for the children, one for the youth, and one for the adults. He would like to see a model of how this would work in practice.

Wernick responded that models had been considered, but they wanted authorization to go ahead with the concept before developing models. He pointed out that youth make up more than 60 percent of our world membership. We have three distinct age groupings: children, youth, and adults. All should be in Sabbath school, all should be concerned with outreach. They had tried bringing the leaders of these departments together for coordination. This was fine in theory, but in practice each one still went his separate way. This explains the need for a single department.

More and more comments were now being made in favor of the proposed changes. Joel Tompkins, president of the Mid-America Union, felt this document was long overdue but hoped some room for flexibility would be allowed so that unions and conferences could employ specialists as needed.

One of the more telling speeches was made by Gerald J. Christo, president of the Southern Asia Division. He said he had been a pastor, union and then division departmental director, and was now a division president. As a pastor he had wondered what he ought to do with all the materials that came down from the higher levels. At the union level he had directed two departments and felt frustrated in attempting to be equally effective in each area and in getting the appropriate materials for the conference directors. When he became a division director he became even more frustrated because he found many of his materials never even reached the local church. Now, as president, it was a major difficulty to find really competent and effective departmental directors. He wished for a program of training and education for departmental leaders.

Support for the proposal was building rapidly. Earnest Lutz, Jr., president of the Minnesota Conference, recounted how, in addition to his conference duties, he also serves as a local church pastor. He is in the unique position of being at both ends of the funnel. He supported the reorganization. This section was then voted.

As discussion moved on to the role of the departments, a number of amendments were made and defeated. A major discussion ensued over whether or not union departmental directors coordinated the work of the departments on the conference level. Ohio Conference president John Fowler proposed an amendment that would delete "coordinate" and add "serve as consultants and resource persons." Wemick then spoke in opposition to the amendment, reminding the body that the role of the union is to coordinate the departmental work of the conferences. The amendment lost. The issue would not go away, however. Bruce Johnston, president of the Idaho Conference, felt the wording was too strong. He wanted to know whether the union departments simply coordinate the work as a whole or actually coordinate and direct the local conference departments. Wernick replied that the role of the union is to coordinate the work in the departments, and that conferences should not be too independent. After more discussion Wernick agreed to bring in a revised description, which subsequently was accepted. To convey an idea of the give-and-take that goes on at an Annual Council, the original proposal and the revision as voted are printed below.

The next question asked was how this combining of departments would affect the local church. The document explained that on the local level all the former ministries would continue to function. In other words, churches would still have a Sabbath school, youth society, Pathfinder Club, et cetera.

The commission recommended that the special relationship between the North American Division and the General Conference continue. It proposed some changes, however. North American Division departmental directors will continue as associate directors in the General Conference, but the commission recommended that these individuals be grouped together in the General Conference complex to provide visible and functional unity and identity. At present they are scattered throughout the various departments and buildings. In addition, for the first time, the General Conference vice president for North America will also have the title of president of the North American Division.

After three days of debate, discussion, and revisions the Annual Council voted to recommend the whole report to the General Conference session in New Orleans.

Role of women

The balconies of the Takoma Park church are always open for observers when Annual Council meetings are in session on the main floor. But seldom have more than a half-dozen interested onlookers filled those pews. It was different Sunday, October 14. Seventy people certainly didn't make it crowded, just unusual.

Word had apparently gotten out that sometime that day the "hot" topic of the role of women in the church would come up. Approximately 40 women and 30 men sat quietly, occasionally leaning forward to peer over the railing for a clearer view of what was going on or who was speaking. They sat through the morning session, listening patiently as division, union, and conference presidents, General Conference personnel, department heads, and lay representatives debated the issues involved in the Role and Function Committee report. They came back at two-thirty for the afternoon session, and listened for another hour before final action was taken on the Role and Function report. Then the session chairman, General Conference general vice president Enoch Oliveira, brought up Agenda Item No. 183: Women (Local Church) Elders—Election and Ordination.

The intent of this item was to reaffirm a 1975 Spring Meeting action that opened the way for ordination of deaconesses and for ordination of women as local elders after counseling with the union and division committees.

Immediately after introducing this item, the chair deferred to General Conference president Neal C. Wilson, who wished to make a statement. Wilson began his remarks by sharing his openness to the considerable concern that the issue of women and ministry had aroused in certain areas of North America and other parts of the world. He mentioned having received 30 to 40 letters on the matter in recent months, and alluded to 28 phone calls that had come to his desk just that morning. Most of the opinions registered, he allowed, were on one side of the issue, but he was unwilling to share which side for fear of prejudicing subsequent discussion. Some, he said, felt the matter was a moral issue, while others felt that it wasn't. Biblically, he said, it seems clear that women are definitely accorded equality of status. The question remaining is whether the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy mandates equality of function.

Wilson reviewed the history of the women in ministry issue, starting with a 1973 study group and its report to Annual Council. That council received but did not act on the report that recommended further study be given to the election of women to offices requiring ordination. The 1974 Annual Council reaffirmed most of that report and requested the President's Executive Advisory to arrange for further study of election of women to such offices. The Spring Meeting in 1975 voted to accept a similar document, which mandated that "the greatest discretion and caution be exercised in the ordaining of women to the office of local elder, counsel being sought in all cases by the local conference/mission from the union and division committees before proceeding."

From that point, Wilson perceived the church as proceeding step by step in opening new opportunities for women to serve. Subsequently, the way was opened for women attending the Seminary to receive the same stipend as men. Women began to graduate with M.Div. degrees and accept positions as associates in pastoral care. Like their male ministerial-intern counterparts, they were ordained as local elders and served as assistant or associate pastors. But here a strong dichotomy developed. While a man could leave the Seminary and immediately begin to baptize and fulfill the other responsibilities of an ordained minister within his own district, a woman graduating at the same time could share the responsibilities but not the privileges of ordination to the gospel ministry. Wilson seemed undecided as to whether the church had done the right thing by encouraging ladies to go this far. If we never intended to allow ordination, he wondered, did we do the wrong thing by bringing them so tantalizingly near while keeping that final privilege from them?

While the specific item on the agenda at this point was simply the ordination of local elders, Wilson went on to explore the agenda item he knew would be next: a specific request from the Columbia Union and Potomac Conference to allow women who are ordained as local elders and serving the conference as associates in pastoral care to baptize. He admitted that there is some ambiguity in church policy regarding this since local elders can baptize under certain circumstances even if they have no ministerial license.

Carrying the discussion a step further, he addressed another issue raised in the Potomac Conference's request: the granting of ministerial licenses to women. Wilson admitted that the church's working policy could be interpreted as being ambiguous here as well. One portion of the policy obviously limits ministerial licenses to the masculine gender while another portion seems to be intentionally worded to include both genders. The Potomac Conference had proceeded on the assumption that the policy does not deny the license to women, and now wanted clarification from Annual Council as to whether they could license their female ministers, who are noted for doing very effective work. A third portion of the Potomac request asked for renewed consideration of ordaining women to the gospel ministry.

Potomac's request had first been referred to a General Conference officers' meeting, and then to a meeting of General Conference and division officers and union presidents. These bodies forwarded the request to the Annual Council session, along with some history of the issue and a recommended timetable for studying the issue and settling it finally at next year's General Conference session.

Wilson closed his lengthy statement by returning to the item at hand. He moved that the Annual Council endorse the 1975 Spring Meeting action allowing the ordination of women as local elders. He stated that in some areas of the world the Spring Meeting action was not viewed as having the weight of an Annual Council action, which involves a broader representation.

After the motion was seconded, Oliveira expressed his concern that this action, which would affect the world field, was once again being taken with very little representation from outside North America. Wilson then pointed out that nothing in the motion would force any action upon any area of the world field, and that he had discussed it thoroughly with the various division presidents.

Dr. Calvin Rock, president of Oakwood College, questioned whether the council really wanted to continue to require such stringent procedures for approving ordination of women—are we really still at the point that it would have to be taken all the way to the division committee before we could ordain a local elder? Wilson spoke in favor of continuing the procedure as outlined in 1975, as this was the desire of the world leaders with whom he had spoken.

When the issue was brought to a voice vote, only one No was heard. Laughter in the vicinity of the negative vote indicated that it may have been facetious. The Sunday afternoon session closed without the Potomac request being discussed on the floor.

Monday morning's discussion of the women's issue was chaired by General Conference general vice president Kenneth J. Mittleider. He opened the discussion by referring invitees to a recommendation from the General Conference and division officers and union presidents.

The recommendation called for the Potomac Conference to table the issue of ministerial licenses for women until the larger issue of ordination of women to the gospel ministry could be resolved. It also proposed a specific timetable for arriving at a definitive decision on the ordination issue (see box, p. 26), and called for the Biblical Research Institute to coordinate distribution of a balanced summary of theological positions to those who would be studying the issue at the Spring Meeting called for in the timetable. The recommendation closed by stating that "the decision of the 1985 General Conference session will be definitive and should be accepted as such by the church worldwide."

After the recommendation was read, Mittleider called for a motion to adopt it. It appeared that he hoped to avoid further discussion since adoption of the recommendation would refer discussion to the Spring Meeting and from there to the General Conference session, the only body really qualified to make a final decision on the ordination question.

If the chairman wished to move on without further discussion, his wish was not to be granted. First to speak was Atlantic Union president Earl Amundson. He gave statistics that he said indicated that women are more widely accepted in executive level positions in divisions outside North America. He then moved changes in paragraph 3 of the timetable to mandate that the chairperson of the Women's Commission and two of its members, two women from church educational institutions, the chairman and vice chairman of the General Conference Human Relations Commission, and two women pastors join the meeting of the division representatives scheduled in connection with the 1985 Spring Meeting. Australasian Division president W. R. L. Scragg, General Conference president Neal Wilson, General Conference general vice president Francis W. Wernick, and the chairman each spoke against the motion on the grounds that a study group should not be nominated in such a large meeting, and with such a preponderance of North American Division representatives. Wilson also challenged Amundsen's statistics. BekeleHeye, president of the Eastern Africa Division, also appealed that any body making decisions that largely affect the world church should be internationally representative. When the amendment was brought to a vote, less than a dozen supported it.

Next to address the invitees was Charles E. Bradford, North American Division president. He appealed to world church leaders to try to understand what is happening in North America. NAD administrators have been encouraged by the General Conference to hire women as ministers. They have required the same things of women as men, but then the women can only sit back and watch when their peers are ordained. He challenged world leaders to "get inside the skin" of the men who have to deal with this problem.

Wallace Coe, Columbia Union Conference president, also appealed for understanding, specifically for Potomac Conference president Ron Wisbey, and then Wisbey himself addressed the group, giving the background of his conference committee's actions. He told of a meeting on February 11 when eight individuals ordained as local elders but not as ministers were authorized to perform baptisms. He noted that the General Conference raised questions about only the three women in the group. He felt it ironic that the conflict came in the area of soul winning. He asked that the invitees recognize that all he was requesting for the women was the privilege of baptizing, not ordination. The morning session adjourned after his appeal that those assembled "consider our needs."

Lowell L. Bock, general vice president of the General Conference, chaired the afternoon session. Several speakers addressed the question of whether any action taken couldn't just be limited in scope to various divisions. Retired General Conference president Robert H. Pierson appealed that any decision be based on the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy rather than on man's counsel. "I'm afraid of moving a step at a time," he said. "We're in this problem today because of moving a step at a time. . . . We must on our knees find a solution."

Gerald J. Christo, president of the Southern Asia Division, stated that the North American Division should not feel that the world field is holding back on this issue. Rather, he had heard more opposition from within North America than from the world field. He asked that the group could move forward on the issue at hand rather than discussing it further.

The chair recognized six more individuals in line to speak, but then entertained a motion from the floor to move the question without further discussion. Bock explained that a two-thirds vote was required to close the discussion, and the vote was taken by standing. The count was 145 to 65 in favor of closing discussion. Before the final vote on the recommendation was called for, Richard Hammill asked a clarifying question about how widely the study documents from the Biblical Research Institute would be distributed. Would they be published in the Adventist Review?

Wilson indicated that a more likely venue for distribution might be the union papers, and appealed that those who would be requested to make decisions study the documents carefully and prayerfully. He said that a number of excellent papers have already been prepared, and that most indicated that neither the Bible nor the Spirit of Prophecy either endorses or condemns ordination of women. He raised the question of just how much authority the church has to act in a dilemma like this. He also pointed out that invitees had just the previous day endorsed a document saying that one ordained ministry serves the world church, so the decision must apply throughout the world, not just locally.

Returning to his earlier question of whether the church had done the right thing in proceeding step by step to open new fields for ministry by women, he said that now some were saying we ought to just go forward, since it would be less harmful than backing off after going this far. He seemed to feel that the present dilemma had resulted from the church's taking too many strides without carefully considering where it was going. The result was an unjust inequality between male and female Seminary graduates. He even went so far as to question whether the problem didn't stem from the 1976 expansion of the rights of a licensed minister. Was that expansion a mistake? he wondered. He clearly felt that the church's present stand is untenable, and that we must either back up or go forward. He appealed that no one would suppose that the issue was being referred to the General Conference session with the intention of defeating it there. When the vote was taken, it was clearly in favor of following the recommendation. Wisbey made one final speech in which he told of a husband-and-wife ministerial team who had graduated from the Seminary together, with the wife at the head of the class. The husband would be ordained October 20. His wife, who had studied and served beside him through the years, would only be allowed to watch. Wisbey concluded his remarks by making it clear that he was pleased and thankful to Wilson and the council for taking the Potomac request seriously and for giving it a hearing.

No one in the balconies seemed surprised by the action taken. Most filed out alone, or talking in small groups. None appeared disgruntled; they seemed willing to wait patiently for the decision at next year's General Conference session.

Our work in the Soviet Union

One of the more interesting sidelights to Annual Council came on Tuesday morning when Alf Lohne, the General Conference general vice president who serves as adviser for the church's work in the Soviet Union, shared a report of progress in recent years. He reported that in the past 15 years he has seen significant advances in the church's ability to work. In the late sixties and early seventies, meetings were held in secret, and there were severe divisions among Soviet Adventists. Today the church is united, and 3,000 people attended one recent meeting. Lohne introduced M. P. Kulakov, president of the Association of Seventh-day Adventists in the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, and N. A. Zhukaluk; cochairman of the Association of Seventh-day Adventists in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Zhukaluk spoke briefly in Russian with Kulakov translating, then Kulakov told of 1,500 baptisms in the past year, and of publishing Bibles and a magazine for ministers. He reported that next year Adventists will be able to print 5,000 New Testaments and 3,000 Sabbath School quarterlies in the U.S.S.R.

Administration and use of tithe funds

One of the more significant documents presented for approval at this Annual Council is titled "Tithe Funds—Administration/Use Of." It is actually a summary of a report issued by a committee that studied the issue of tithe administration and usage last June. The study and recommendations grew out of a desire to regularize the handling of tithe and to stop recent trends that have tended toward disunity and even com petition between organizations within the church. To this end it defines proper channels for handling tithe, approved methods of soliciting and sharing tithe funds, and the proper "storehouse" to which the tithe should be returned. The document is far-reaching in its application to members and administrators. It points out that the Malachi 3 promise of unmeasured blessings for tithers is conditioned upon bringing tithe to the storehouse. Here are some of the most significant points covered in the recommended action:

1. The General Conference Committee at Annual Council or General Conference session has authority to create and revise the church's tithing policies by vote of its delegates and members.

2. The proper storehouse to which to bring tithe is the local conference treasury, and the proper channel for getting tithe to the storehouse is via the local church. This does not disallow members' sending their tithe to the union or General Conference office, but when this is done, the receiving organization should send it to the local conference treasury without divulging the name of the donor. If members send tithe to these higher organizations with instruction that it not be returned to the local conference, the receiving organization should try to persuade the member to allow the funds to be distributed through normal channels. If the member declines to allow this, the money should be returned to the donor along with an appeal that he or she be reconciled to the local church and/or conference.

3. The tithe-sharing principles that provide for certain proportions of local conference tithe to be shared with the local, union, and General Conference should be adhered to with all tithe funds, and no organization of the church should accept tithe funds from members who state that the funds cannot be shared as mandated by policy. No church organization should accept tithe funds to be passed directly to another organization.

4. No conference or mission should solicit tithe funds directly from members in another conference or mission. (Here the recommendation does not forbid acceptance, only solicitation.)

5. No denominational institution should knowingly accept tithe funds directly from Seventh-day Adventist members.

The document also deals with proper handling of offerings, detailing how access to denominational mailing lists may be granted to certain organizations for solicitation purposes. It also forbids local churches and elementary schools from appealing for funds outside their own conference territory. In receiving offerings, local churches should designate all loose offerings for the announced offering of the day and not require those wishing to give to the announced offering to place their gift in an envelope.

These recommendations were brought to the floor on Tuesday morning, October 16, a meeting that Enoch Oliveira chaired. The document was opened for discussion, but it was not felt necessary to review it item by item. The chairman asked that it be ratified by calling question on each individual page. Many council invitees were inserting recent handouts in their notebooks, and there was general confusion as question was called on the first three pages, but then]. Robert Spangler, secretary of the General Conference Ministerial and Stewardship Association, rose to question the policy of having the General Conference refuse to accept tithe directly from members. He felt that some members upon hearing of this policy would begin to send their tithe to organizations outside the church.

Several others spoke on this issue as well, with some saying that no organization should accept tithe if it can't be shared. Richard Hammill said that he would allow that it is unfortunate that members become disgruntled and send their tithe outside their local field, but that they are often reconciled in short order. If the General Conference in the meantime refused to accept their tithe, this could lead to further alienation from the church. He questioned why the individual should be denied the right to send his tithe wherever he wishes. He moved that this aspect of the document be referred for further study.

Many individuals rose to speak on this question, but the weight of opinion seemed to hold that allowing any segment of the church organization to keep 100 percent of any tithe sent to it would break down the principle of tithe sharing. Kenneth Mittleider stated that when he was a local conference president he couldn't conscientiously accept tithe that was restricted from sharing, and that the General Conference should abide by the same principle. Hammils motion was finally defeated, and the document was accepted as a whole.

Association of Adventist Forums report

Tuesday morning dawned with none of the invitees suspecting that two extremely diverse constituencies within the Adventist Church were going to receive powerful reprimands. Midway through the morning discussion Neal C. Wilson paused and said he had a very important statement to make. Here are his opening words:

There do come times in the life of a leader when he knows that he must do something that he dislikes to do. But a leader has to do some things because he knows the people are looking for a signal from him, and that's true of all of you. There are some who may misunderstand when a leader makes certain statements, and that's always a risk you have to take. It can also at times strain personal relationships and friendships, and that's something too that you desperately try to avoid. But in spite of all this, there are times when people expect a signal from you and as a leader you need to make a statement. This morning I would like to share some of the questions in my own heart regarding the relationship of the church to the Association of Adventist Forums and its magazine, Spectrum. I've modified my statement a number of times and I'm going to try to be kind, but I'm also going to be very clear. I'm not asking, Brother Chairman, for debate, discussion, or a vote on this item. I would like you to know this comes from Neal Wilson. I do represent an office in the church that people look to for signals, and because of this I feel it necessary to make a statement.

Wilson, in a six-page statement, went on to express some real concerns he had with this group. He gave some back ground to the beginnings of the association and listed its stated aims and objectives, which were:

1. To provide an organization that will facilitate fellowship between graduate students in different geographical areas of the United States.

2. To stimulate evangelistic con tact through cultural interaction with non-Seventh-day Adventist scholars.

3. To serve as a point of contact between graduate students and the Seventh-day Adventist organization, and to encourage and facilitate the service of these students to the church.

4. To encourage pastoral guidance for Seventh-day Adventist students on non-Seventh-day Adventist campuses.

5. To maintain an organ of communication wherein Seventh-day Adventist scholars may exchange academic information, thoughts, and opinions.

Wilson went on to list how the association had departed from these laudable aims and had become a critical, destructive voice within the church.

Wilson emphasized that he considered much of what Spectrum had published to be helpful but that its overall emphasis has become one of "planting seeds of criticism, polarization, negative questioning, undermining confidence in church organization, and lessening respect for the legitimacy and authority of church leadership." Wilson pointed out that up to this time he had served as adviser and consultant to the association but now he was withdrawing from that role. And he noted that Spectrum does not carry the endorsement of church leadership. [It never had official endorsement.] He listed seven concerns:

1. We do not agree with what appears to be a practice, and basic approach, of the AAF, namely, that it is necessary or productive to listen to and discuss all viewpoints, whether positive or negative, truth or error. We cannot accept the premise that our journals and pulpits should give equal time and exposure to all view points with the idea that ultimately truth will prevail. We have a distinctive message that needs to be presented with emphasis and conviction.

2. It seems to us that the AAF and Spectrum do not take any definite or clearly stated positions regarding doctrinal subjects and issues. Much seems to be rationalized and left tentative. Pluralism seems to be advocated, and even some spiritual values seem to be negotiable.

3. We weary of always being told what is wrong with the church! Why do we not hear about some positive, workable, and tested solutions and alternatives? Especially do we feel this way when negative comments come from individuals who appear to pose as experts, but who have never had church leadership responsibility or the more awesome and sacred responsibility of trying to maintain unity in a spiritual world family.

4. We are disappointed that the AAF takes the initiative to provide a platform and arrange meetings for known and declared dissident individuals and groups within the church.

5. We reject the implication or inference that Spectrum is the most authentic source of information regarding church affairs. We hope it is obvious to many readers that Spectrum not infrequently contains factual inaccuracies and faulty conclusions.

6. We observe with concern the persistent involvement of the AAF and Spectrum in actively urging what appears to us to be irresponsible concepts of, and changes in, denominational administration, operations, structure, and organization. Unfortunately, these ideas are propagated with little apparent concern for what the results might be.

7. Finally, we find it difficult to explain why the pages of Spectrum so seldom defend or endorse positions of the church or say anything positive about its evangelistic thrust.

Wilson believed that the association still could perform an important role if it would only return to its original objectives. The president was also very careful to say that we must not judge or condemn those who belong to the association. He made a pastoral plea for the AAF to reconsider its position and be a strong participant in the mission of the Adventist Church.

Schism

Tuesday morning Neal C. Wilson had administered a strong rebuke to the Association of Adventist Forums for their critical and judgmental attitude toward church leadership. That same afternoon Wilson again departed from the prepared agenda to administer a rebuke—this time to part of the ultraconservative wing of the church for their critical and judgmental attitude. Pilgrim's Rest in Tennessee had sent to every member of the General Conference Committee participating in the Annual Council (more than 340 individuals) a number of documents pertaining to the schism in the church in Hungary.

Wilson began by reading the opening paragraph from a paper titled "An Appeal to the General Conference Committee." He pointed out inaccuracies in the very first paragraph and said the rest of the documents were like this, a mixture of truth and misinformation. Wilson went on to say, "I have sympathy for them, but no respect." He commented on how complex the situation is. Pilgrim's Rest material represented only one side of the issue. Wilson has five thick files in his office on this problem. He then called upon Edwin Ludescher, president of the Euro-Africa division, to make a statement.

For the next hour Ludescher recounted the issues, which he stated went back over 40 years. Both sides had "horns and wings"—each side had made their mistakes. Counsel had been given to the leaders, and some progress was being made. However, because of the political makeup of the country, the division and the General Conference had to be very cautious in their handling of the situation.

The members of the council listened with close attention to his report and at the end voted:

To send the following message to the Euro-Africa Division and our fellow church members in Hungary: The members of the 1984 Annual Council express appreciation to the leadership of the Euro-Africa Division and the General Conference for their full report of the church schism in Hungary and for the sensitivity, patience, and concern shown by them in their arduous attempts to effect unity.

Further, the members of the General Conference Committee in Annual Council lovingly appeal to these individuals who have not returned to the official body of Seventh-day Adventist believers to do so as soon as possible, thus enabling God's church to present a united front to the nation of Hungary and the world.

The editors of MINISTRY hope to sort out the considerable complexities of the Hungarian situation and present a full report to our readers in the near future.

A statement on theological freedom and accountability

On the afternoon of the last day of their meeting, the invitees took up a matter with implications for individuals in every branch and level of denominational employ. The 1983 Annual Council had considered a document on academic freedom and the procedures that should be followed in the case of a church employee who came to differ with the church's teachings. However, at that time, some of the invitees pointed out that it would be difficult to handle fairly with one procedure the diverse situations of pastors and religion teachers. What fit one would not necessarily be appropriate for the other. Consequently, the recommendation was referred back to the committee. The invitees asked that two separate documents be developed to fit these differing needs. These, then, were presented to this year's council. *

Document A is entitled "A Statement on Theological Freedom and Accountability—The Church and Its Institutions. " It deals with church employees at the local and conference level (including K-12 institutions) and employees of the church's nonacademic institutions.

Its first section begins by pointing out that freedom is essential to the church and those who serve in it. But it stresses the importance of unity and a broader perspective than that of the individual. "One person may stimulate the community to study a question, but only God's people and church as a whole can decide what is or is not true in the light of Scripture."

In the procedures that it recommends for dealing with a worker who differs theologically with the church, it attempts to maintain a balance between preserving the character of the church and giving the worker's views a hearing.

These procedures involve three distinct steps: private consultation between the worker and his chief executive officer (CEO), a re view committee, and appeals to other levels of the organization. A worker who initiates the consultation with the CEO and who makes no attempt to promulgate his views may remain at his post and submit a written report of his position within six months. If he and his CEO are able to resolve the matter at that point, no further action is necessary. If not, the executive commit tee of the conference/institution in which the worker is employed is to arrange for a hearing before a review commission.

A worker who is actively promulgating his position and whose CEO must initiate the consultation may be asked to remain at his post but to refrain from presentation of his views, or he may be placed on administrative leave during the period of the hearing. 'The executive committee of his employing institution then is to arrange for a hearing before a review committee.

The composition of the review committee aroused what discussion there was regarding this document. Originally it specified that the review committee, which was to be chosen by the conference/institution executive committee, was to include the Ministerial secretary of the union, who would serve as chairman; the chief executive officer; a theologian from a Seventh-day Adventist educational institution with some proficiency in the matter under question or a person of comparable ability; two individuals from among five names of peers submitted by the worker; and two additional individuals selected by the conference/institution executive committee.

The discussion ensued when Philip Follett, president of the Northern California Conference, moved that the document be amended to allow the conference to choose the review committee, subject to union approval. He objected to a committee containing too many members from outside the conference because these members tended to feel no urgency in completing their task and would let the matter drag on too long, to the detriment of the work in the local field.

Neal C. Wilson commented that the composition of the review committee was recommended in order to delay precipitous action and to add an outside viewpoint. And Charles B.Hirsch pointed out that with the amendment, ministers may feel they are not receiving a fair hearing. Ralph W. Martin, president of the Nevada-Utah Conference, spoke in support of the amendment, arguing that administration must be kept free to act without undue delay.

With this discussion, the amendment passed. The revised document does not specify the makeup of the review committee. It states only that the committee should include "peers chosen by the conference/institution executive committee with the concurrence of the next higher organization, to give hearing to and judgment upon the doctrinal issue."

If the review committee finds that the worker's views are compatible with the church's fundamental beliefs, no further action is necessary. If they find his views at variance, however, and the worker continues to hold those views and feels constrained to promulgate them, the committee is to recommend to his executive committee that his credentials be withdrawn. Upon determination that his position is both new and valid, the committee is to recommend further study of his position to higher levels of the church organization.

The section of the document that deals with the appeal process makes provision for the church employee to appeal for a hearing by a committee appointed by the union executive committee, and finally, to the executive committee of the division of the General Conference in which he resides.

Document B, which deals with educators, is entitled "Academic Freedom in Seventh-day Adventist Institutions of Higher Education." It lays out a similar concern for freedom and truth as does Document A, but within a framework appropriate to an educational institution. It defines academic freedom as "the guarantee that teachers and students will be able to carry on the functions of learning, research, and teaching with a minimum of restrictions."

The document notes that "freedoms are never absolute and that they imply commensurate responsibilities." It specifies that academicians have freedom of speech, of research, and to teach. Expanding upon the freedom to teach, it states, "Academic freedom is freedom to pursue knowledge and truth in the area of the individual's specialty. It does not give license to express controversial opinions on subjects outside that specialty, nor does it protect the individual from being held accountable for his teaching."

The next section of the document is entitled "Shared Responsibilities." It enlarges upon two basic responsibilities: The first is that of the teacher and leaders of the institution and of the church "to seek for and to disseminate truth." And the second is ''the obligation of teachers and leaders of the institution and the church to counsel together when scholarly findings have a bearing on the message and mission of the church."

In developing the latter, the document points out not only the scholar's responsibility to seek the counsel of others but also church leaders' responsibility to "foster an atmosphere of Christian cordiality within which the scholar will not feel threatened if his findings differ from traditionally held views." It indicates that teachers in the church's educational institutions ought not teach as truth what is contrary to the historical doctrinal position of the church, refer ring to the "Fundamental Beliefs" published in the Seventh-day Adventist Year book.

Unlike Document A, which recommends the procedures that should be used in dealing with other church employees who differ with church teachings, Document B specifies no such process for teachers. Instead it states, "When questions arise dealing with matters of academic freedom, each university and college should have clearly stated procedures to follow in dealing with such grievances. Such procedures should include peer review, an appeal process, and a review by the board of trustees."

Proposed Timetable for Reaching a Decision on Ordination of Women to Gospel Ministry

Editors' note—We quote this material from the recommendation brought before, and accepted by, the 1984 Annual Council.

A. During Annual Council, 1984, clarifying statements will be made in regard to the intent of previous General Conference and NADCA actions regarding the role of women in the church, the ministerial license, associates in pastoral care, women as local church elders, and other related issues. *

B. The following steps will be taken to obtain a conclusive decision by the 1985 General Conference session.

1. The various issues will be dis cussed with the division officers in connection with the premeetings of the 1984 Annual Council. *

2. Each division will be asked to discuss the issues in preparation for a meeting of representatives from the world divisions sometime in early 1985.

3. A meeting of at least two representatives from each of the world divisions will be scheduled in connection with the General Conference Commit tee's 1985 Spring Meeting. The meeting will be coordinated by the Biblical Research Institute.

4.. The report of the meeting of division representatives will be presented to the 1985 Spring Meeting, and recommendations will be referred to the 1985 General Conference session for decision.

Special Offer Key Annual Council Documents

For those on you who would like to read the full reports on some of the major items discussed and voted at the Annual Council, MINISTRY is making a special offer. We have collected into one package the following documents:

  • "Role and Function of Denominational Organizations"
  • "Administration and Use of Tithe Funds"
  • "Sabbath Observance"
  • "A Statement on Theological Freedom and Accountability"
  • These documents comprise more than 50 pages. Send your check for $5 to:
Annual Council Reports MINISTRY 6840 Eastern Avenue NW. Washington, D.C. 20012 Please allow four weeks for processing.

Ministry reserves the right to approve, disapprove, and delete comments at our discretion and will not be able to respond to inquiries about these comments. Please ensure that your words are respectful, courteous, and relevant.

comments powered by Disqus
By the staff of Ministry

December 1984

Download PDF
Ministry Cover

More Articles In This Issue

Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries

The 1 983 Annual Council created Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries (ACM) with a mandate to coordinate placing Adventist chaplains in government and private institutions. Former MINISTRY executive editor B. Russell Holt interviewed Charles D. Martin, director of ACM, and his associate, James H. Harris, both of whom have served with the National Service Organisation at various levels since the 1950s, to find out how the new organization can serve ministers who have an interest in chaplaincy.

Practical application in preaching

How do you shape your sermons so they touch the lives of your people? This article, which concludes our series on preaching, not only tells why your sermons should be practical but suggests that by such methods as characterization and modernization you can really affect your listeners' lives. This is a practical article on practical application in preaching!

Family Worship—pain and joy

Life's tempo continues to increase——at least while you have children at home. It's never easy to work family worship into your schedule, but with innovation you can do it. And it's worth the effort

View All Issue Contents

Digital delivery

If you're a print subscriber, we'll complement your print copy of Ministry with an electronic version.

Sign up
Advertisement - SermonView - Medium Rect (300x250)

Recent issues

See All