Facts and Fiction about the General Conference’s Compliance Document
Oct 23, 2018, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States, Pastor Mark Finley


If a myth is repeated often enough and loud enough a lot of people will accept it as reality. For centuries people believed the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. Even reputed scientists and scholars of the day taught and repeated the myth. A myth is a myth no matter how loud it is trumpeted and no matter who shouts it.

Myths are running rampant on social media about the document, “Regard for and Practice of General Conference Session and General Conference Executive Committee Actions,” recently voted at the 2018 Annual Council.

Some claim the General Conference desires to control what happens even on the local church level and no one is safe from its tentacles of control. The document has been called “papal,” “anti-protestant,” and “unbiblical.”

Let’s consider seven common myths and the facts of the document.

Myth #1: The document is an overreach by the General Conference to centralize power.

Fact #1: The document actually states, “Planning for and ensuring compliance shall initially be entrusted to the entity closest to the matter” (p. 1, line 25).

The intent of the document is to allow the entity closest to the issue of non-compliance to handle the matter. Rather than a centralization of power, it encourages the opposite. It urges all issues of policy non-compliance to be solved at the local level. If that is not possible the next highest level of church organization may become involved. For example, if a local conference has a challenge with non-compliance that it cannot or will not solve, the Union Conference/Mission can become involved in working out a solution. This is true for each level of church organization.

If there is non-compliance of a General Conference Session or Executive Committee voted action, the GC Executive Committee may become involved.

Myth # 2: The document uses a non-biblical method of coercion.

Fact #2: The document does just the opposite. Here is what the document states, “Administrators dealing with any matter of non-compliance shall exercise Christian due process which will include much prayer and dialogue” (p. 2, line 35).

The document is designed to be redemptive, not punitive. It provides for a process of dialogue, prayer, and counsel to determine how best to solve the matter of non-compliance. It follows the Scriptural pattern of reconciliation and resolution as outlined in Matthew 18.

Myth #3: The document is a heavy-handed authoritarian approach to problem solving.

Fact #3: The document provides for tolerance. It allows the administrators of the entity that is perceived to be out of compliance a 60-day period to further dialogue and offer solutions to the challenging situation (p. 2, line 14).

The due process provisions in the document encourage discussion and prayerful consideration on how to solve non-compliance issues. Rather than a heavy-handed dictatorial mandate, the document assures a process of collaboration and seeks to find solutions to problems of non-compliance.

The proposed “warning” and “reprimand” are designed to enable entities to think of the seriousness of non-compliance to voted actions of the world church, and to encourage them to come back into harmony with the world church. Any warning, reprimand, or other consequences must be voted by the General Conference Executive Committee with worldwide representation.

Myth #4: The final vote of authority regarding consequences rests in Silver Spring, Maryland, with the GC Administrative Committee

Fact #4: The document clearly states, “If, after the organization closest to the matter has been unable to resolve a compliance issue and the General Conference Compliance Review Committee has recommended consequences, only the General Conference Executive Committee and/or the General Conference in session has authority to implement the recommendation” (p. 3, lines 27-30).

Myth #5: This document changes the culture of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and inhibits freedom of conscience.

Fact #5: What will change the culture of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is if the votes of the General Conference in Session and its Executive Committee are not respected. If each entity from the local church to local conferences, Unions and Divisions do not respect the decisions of the corporate church, the church will be led into organizational chaos, fragmentation, disunity and congregationalism.

The issue before the church is whether it desires to remain as a united worldwide body, valuing the collective decisions of the General Conference in Session and its Executive Committee or whether it will become a loosely connected body of organizational entities.

Myth #6: The General Conference does not have any entity to oversee its activities and actions.

Fact #6: The General Conference is answerable to the GC Executive Committee. This is why regular reports are given during the Spring Meeting and Annual Council. In addition, the General Conference is regularly audited for financial compliance by the independent and well-respected auditing firm, Maner & Costerisan.

During the 2018 Spring Meeting, representatives from Maner & Costerisan, reported that the General Conference was in compliance with GC Working Policy regarding financial matters.

Also during the 2018 Spring Meeting, as part of the financial reports, GC Finance presented the “Accountability for Use of Tithe” report.

This, along with the report from Maner & Costerisan, can be read in the May 2018 GC Executive Committee Newsletter.

Myth #7: The document is not biblical. It places policy above Scripture and therefore is contrary to the Protestant Reformation in that it violates freedom of conscience.

Fact #7: Church organization is a fundamental principle of New Testament teaching. The church is held together by the Holy Spirit through a common commitment to Christ, a shared belief in Biblical teachings, a passion for mission, and a worldwide church organization. If any one of these is subtly undermined, the entire church is in danger.

The policies of the church never dictate or supersede the individual’s conscience. Every believer is free to follow the dictates of their conscience. There will be times when honest people see things differently. Policies are agreements about the way the church will operate. They determine how an international, global family will function.

Here is the point. Policies do not dictate what we believe but they should govern the actions of church leaders. Church leaders have an ethical responsibility to abide by the decisions made jointly by the representatives of the world church at a General Conference Session.

Policies are not unchangeable biblical teachings, and should never be elevated above biblical truth. They are operating principles that delegates to a General Conference Session or Executive Committee can change and at times have changed. If change to any policy passed by the General Conference in Session or to Executive Committee actions is made, it should be made by the same body where it was voted.

Where the Battle Isn’t

Myths never serve us well. They lead us to operate from fear in a world of illusion. Worst of all, they deter us from the mission of the church to live and preach the gospel to fulfill the mission of Christ.

Believing myths causes us to fight where the battle isn’t rather than focusing our spiritual energies and attention on reaching lost people to prepare men and women for the coming of our Lord.

May the living Christ so fill our hearts and guide our thinking that we focus on the thing that really matters: souls saved eternally for His kingdom.


NOTE: We reproduce here this article as originally published by the Adventist News Network on October 23, 2018 at https://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2018-10-23/mystifying-myths/


BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE. Pastor Mark Finley is a well-known evangelist, author, and retired General Conference vice-president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

5 thoughts on “Mystifying Myths

  1. Well put! Now the ball is in the court of those not in compliance. My guess is they will most likely still twist and turn fact into fiction to achieve their own goals. I hope they prove me wrong.

    Elder Jim Cox, Ret

    Reply
  2. Perhaps the title would have been better put, “Demystifying myths” for that is what it does. Well stated regarding the issues and the “myths” expounded by a number of semi-Adventist forums who are doing exactly as this articles states – making untrue statements, and trying to stir up trouble so they can keep their WO rebellion and other practices which follow after the worldly schemes, hoping these will draw in converts.

    Regarding encouraging wrong actions and excusing rebellion, we read:

    “While God reproves the transgressor, they feel inclined to excuse and encourage him. Thus they say to the sinner, It shall be well with thee. Such persons call good evil, in that they oppose and denounce those who faithfully deliver the messages of warning and reproof committed to them of God. They call evil good by extolling those who have no reproofs to bear and no warnings to give, who pass along in a careless, indifferent spirit, excusing sin, and by their own course encouraging worldliness and backsliding. All these are sanctioning a deception which has proved the ruin of many. The blood of souls is upon them. Their course is more offensive to God than is that of the open sinner. Anciently, the Lord always had among his people faithful prophets, whom, he sent to reprove sin. He has never removed these from his church. Those who rise up against warning and reproof, and seek by their jests, their smart speeches, or their deceptions, to make of no effect the plain words of reproof prompted by the Spirit of God, will find, in the great day of final reckoning, an account against them which they will not wish to meet.” ST, October 4, 1883 par. 20.

    Reply
    • Its sad church leaders we hold in high esteem are prepared to divide the church over Women’s Ordination! With all due respect this is foolishness.

      Reply
  3. This morning reading AA I came across this paragraphs that I had highlighted sometime in the past:

    “The Thessalonian believers were greatly annoyed by men coming among them with fanatical ideas and doctrines. Some were “disorderly, working not at all, but … busy-bodies.” The church had been properly organized, and officers had been appointed to act as ministers and deacons. But there were some, self-willed and impetuous, who refused to be subordinate to those who held positions of authority in the church. They claimed not only the right of private judgment, but that of publicly urging their views upon the church. In view of this, Paul called the attention of the Thessalonians to the respect and deference due to those who had been chosen to occupy positions of authority in the church.”

    White, E. G. (1911). The Acts of the Apostles in the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Vol. 4, pp. 261–262).

    Pray for the leaders in our UCC that continue fostering the spirit of rebellion and disunity.

    Reply

Leave a reply

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

required

*