Words Really Do Matter

Here’s an axiom you can bank on: Most Adventists despair at the thought of having to read their local conference or union’s constitution and bylaws. And no wonder! The verbiage can seem complex. The issues being addressed can seem too far removed from “real life” to be worth one’s time. And consequently, most delegates to constituency sessions (the venues at which constitutions and bylaws are to be ratified and reviewed) pay them little to no attention.

Unfortunately, this lack of attentiveness has enabled a disturbing trend, particularly at conference and union constituency sessions. To be clear, the vast majority of sessions conducted in the Adventist Church worldwide are done in Christ-centered, appropriate fashion. But I have observed enough deviations from this rule that I believe the phenomenon needs to be identified, analyzed, and, where evident, stopped.

Why Sessions?

Adventism is Protestant in both its theology and ecclesiastical structure. Consequently, anything resembling papal authority is unwelcome. One key to preserving this decentralization of power is our constituent system of governance. Accordingly, the various levels of Adventist authority—the local church, conferences, unions, and the General Conference—hold regular constituency meetings.[1] In preparation for these meetings, delegates are elected from various portions of a level’s membership. The goal is for a session to have sufficient representation from key stakeholders such that the best decisions for that field of ministry can be made.

Sessions are to have a portion of their meeting dedicated to reviewing their constitution and bylaws. These two documents contain the foundational policies and procedures that are essential to the proper, faithful functioning of the conference, union, etc. Because constitutions and bylaws are usually treated as legal documents, their language can be complex (a potential source of the dread and drowsiness that can afflict delegates tasked with reading them). Yet the wise delegate will not fall asleep over these policies, for they can have a profound effect on how—or even if—Adventism continues as a globally united movement.

The Disturbing Trend

During the past 10-15 years I have seen various attempts to weaken the global unity of the church through subtle changes in constitution and bylaw language. Two examples will serve to illustrate.

First, I am aware of constituency sessions in which the word “generally” has been proposed to be added to the document. In one conference session, for instance, the following addition (in italics) was proposed: “All purposes, powers, policies, and procedures of the Conference shall be generally in harmony with the Working Policies of the General Conference and the Division.”[2]

To some readers, this may seem to be a minor change, perhaps one even in keeping with the anti-centralization theme our church governance is built on. But a closer look reveals otherwise. The key to decentralized power in a global movement is few required policies, not no required policies. The Adventist Church is thus to have as little organization and structure as possible—only as much as is needed to effectively fulfill its mission of sharing globally Christ in the three angels’ messages. But that means that what policies the church in a General Conference Session does adopt must be embraced by the global church if we are to maintain global mission and message unity.

Congregationalism is a form of governance every bit as harmful to global unity as papalism.

The word “generally” (or “normally,” “largely,” “on the whole,” “as a general rule,” etc.) does not comport with global unity. Imagine if a husband were to declare to his wife, “Dearest wife, I will generally be faithful to you.” Few are the wives who would be endeared by this pronouncement! “Generally” simply carries too much porosity to maintain sufficient unity. It allows for an incredible range of interpretation, and in the church would give the rare-but-real rogue administrator or executive committee license to go far afield from Adventist mission and values.

Some may push back and say that while “generally” is quite broad, it is held in check, in nearly every constitution and bylaws, by other statements that require full adherence to church doctrine, fundamental beliefs, etc. This mandated orthodoxy, they say, will prevent any serious deviations that “generally” might otherwise bring.

But this viewpoint fails when faced with real-world questions. Is paying denominational workers one of the 28 fundamental beliefs of the church? Doubtful. How about the investment of conference funds in the real estate market solely at the discretion of the conference president, purportedly “for the good of the church”?[3] Which of our fundamental beliefs directly addresses that? Even issues of human sexuality are potentially in play with the word “generally.” Though few, there are voices in church leadership who do not see openly gay clergy as violating any doctrine voted on by the church in General Conference Session. If intended to foster freedom and decentralized power, “generally” achieves too much.

A second example of this trend is taking the word “and” and replacing it with the word “or.”[4] Below is a sample of this, with the entity names removed and the proposed change in italics. First, the original language in the entity’s constitution:

“. . . all purposes, policies, and procedures of the [redacted] Union shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the [redacted] Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.”

And now, the proposed change:

“The purposes, policies, and procedures of this union conference shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures enacted by the executive committee of the [redacted] Division or the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.”

At best, this change from “and” to “or” is confusing. At worst, it is profoundly divisive. It is confusing because it would make official the bizarre notion that a subsidiary entity may choose which parent entity’s policies it prefers to follow—if widely adopted, a potential recipe for chaos in the world church. It is also potentially divisive, for it is a fact that division executive committees do not always agree with votes taken by the General Conference in session. If a union sympathizes with the former rather than the latter, this proposed constitutional change could pave the way not only for doctrinal deviation but for congregationalism, a form of governance every bit as harmful to global unity as papalism.

Our Task

Words really do matter. Whether it’s the word “generally” or if an “and” becomes an “or,” please take your constitution and bylaws seriously. Yes, they can be complicated and (if we’re honest) even boring. But their impact is real. The General Conference (GC) in session is still “the highest authority that God has upon the earth.”[5] The foundational policies and procedures GC sessions implement really do form a powerful basis for global unity. Let’s work diligently together to maintain that, even—and at times especially—at constituency sessions.

[1] For the local church, constituency meetings take the form of business sessions, to be held at least once a year.

[2] I have seen similar language suggested for the conference president’s role, i.e., that his work as president shall “generally” be in harmony with the policies, etc., of the General Conference and the division.

[3] True story!

[4] The following contrasting word pairs are pivotal when used in constitutions and bylaws: “and” versus “or”; “shall” versus “may”; “should” versus “must.” Any proposed change involving these words must be analyzed carefully before adoption.

[5] Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 3 (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1948), p. 492. Note that this sentiment was roundly reaffirmed by Ellen White as late as 1909 (see her statements in Testimonies, vol. 9, pp. 257-261).