The question of banning certain speakers from the pulpits of Adventist churches is an interesting one, isn’t it? It’s also one that many would understandably prefer not to deal with. Bans can be messy affairs, with private turmoil and public rancor too often being par for the course.
While current church policy does not specifically mention local conferences banning speakers of their choosing, such authority is clearly implied. The following is taken from pages 126 and 127 of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 20th edition (revised 2022):
Authorized Speakers—Only speakers worthy of confidence will be invited to the pulpit by the church pastor, in harmony with guidelines given by the conference. . . . The local elders or church board may also invite speakers, in consultation with the pastor, and in harmony with conference guidelines. Individuals who are no longer members, or who are under discipline, should not be given access to the pulpit.
At times it is acceptable for government officials or civic leaders to address a congregation, but all others should be excluded from the pulpit unless permission is granted by the conference. Every pastor, elder, and conference president must enforce this rule.
The key phrases above for purposes here are “in harmony with guidelines given by the conference,” “in harmony with conference guidelines,” and “unless permission is granted by the conference.” This clearly implies the ability for a local conference to determine who does—and who does not—get access to local Adventist pulpits, including the ability to ban someone from speaking in a conference-owned building (the historical understanding of the words “the pulpit” does not extend to other buildings) anywhere within the conference’s territory. Thus, from a policy perspective, the authority to ban a speaker is entirely valid.
Three Questions
Some Adventists, however, are reluctant to support the speaker ban, in large part because of nagging questions that exceed mere policy verbiage. Here are three such questions I have heard, along with my attempts to answer them:
1. Is the ability to ban a speaker a necessary power for a conference to hold? In a word, absolutely! For since our inception, there have been those who would use Adventist congregations for their own selfish gains. And given the general ability of a conference office to see “the bigger picture” better than the average local church (since conference officers travel throughout their territory, as well as mingle with leaders in other portions of the work), conference administrations are uniquely positioned to spot bona fide threats—and if necessary, keep them from having access to church pulpits. This was very much the argument behind the original push for ministerial credentialing in the early years of Adventism. Those days saw far too many charlatans and hucksters attempting to fleece fledgling congregations while posing as orthodox Seventh-day Adventist Church members. In such cases, banning was not merely good. It was essential.
Moreover, this is hardly a problem that only our pioneers had to wrestle with. Conferences throughout Adventist history have had to ban potentially problematic speakers, including up to the current day. For instance, in the recent past, in one North American conference, a gentleman showed up on Sabbath morning at a local church, wanting to address the congregation. He was winsome, articulate, with a solid measure of charisma. Why not give him the few minutes to greet the saints he requested? Fortunately, the conference had emailed out the news of this man being banned from Adventist pulpits, including posting a picture of him. Turns out, this gentleman was a thoroughgoing and skilled philanderer and had caused great trouble in a number of other Adventist churches through his predations. Once recognized, the man was summarily ushered off the church’s campus. To my knowledge, he has not returned to any church in that conference since. The ban had done what it was supposed to do: protect our churches from those who would harm them.
Given the age we live in, the need for conferences to be able to ban threatening individuals from the pulpit is unlikely to go away. Such authority has too often proved to be critical to the health and safety—physically and spiritually—of our churches.
Bans can be messy affairs, with private turmoil and public rancor too often being par for the course.
However . . .
2. Isn’t it possible for a local conference ban to be abused? Again, I think the answer is clear: absolutely! To be clear, during my 30 years of ministry, I have seen the conference-wide pulpit ban be used appropriately and effectively on many occasions. But sadly, on a handful of occasions, I have also seen it abused. Such abuse has taken three forms:
Unilateralism. Some conference officers in the past have unilaterally decided to ban speakers. They did not consult the conference executive committees or even their fellow officers before informing conference pastors of the ban. They simply imposed it, banking on their own authority as an officer.
Unsound reasons for the ban. Though in my experience rare, I have known of some speakers who were banned from all conference church pulpits because they represented a point of view different from conference administration regarding—and notice my wording carefully—disputed and peripheral topics, i.e., ones that are of legitimate biblical interest but are not part of our voted fundamental beliefs or policies. At the time of the bans, the supposedly verboten topics were under open, active, and peaceful discussion in the wider church. I have no problem with, say, conferences voicing their opinions to a particular local church regarding the appropriateness of a certain speaker coming to speak there. But to ban an individual speaker from the totality of conference pulpits based on nothing more than peripheral differences seems unnecessary at best and petty at worst. Ellen White herself was firmly convinced that
“there are those who oppose everything that is not in accordance with their own ideas, and by so doing they endanger their eternal interest as verily as did the Jewish nation in their rejection of Christ. The Lord designs that our opinions shall be put to the test, that we may see the necessity of closely examining the living oracles to see whether or not we are in the faith.”[*]
Obviously there are contextual limits to the applicability of her counsel. But stifling opinions on peripheral items is, in my opinion, not in itself a healthy basis for a conference-wide ban of a speaker. On the contrary, exposing local churches to a wider range of ideas, rightly done, can be a solidly edifying thing to do.
Secrecy. Again, I am in favor of conference officials voicing their opinions on speaker qualifications. I additionally have no problem with administrators voicing strong reservations to a particular local church hosting a particular speaker, including banning that speaker at that particular time from speaking on that particular occasion. But if a speaker is objectionable enough to be banned from all conference pulpits, it seems logical to make that public to the sisterhood of churches, along with clear reasons for the ban.
Sadly, I have seen speakers banned from speaking in any conference church pulpit, with the ban being acknowledged on a purely “need to know” basis. In one conference the following scenario happened repeatedly: The conference would receive word of a pending invitation to a “banned” person to speak at a conference church. The conference then contacted the local/inviting pastor and informed them of the “conference-wide ban.” This was news to the pastor, and when he or she questioned the conference as to their reasons, the reasons were either vague or not given at all. It is difficult to imagine scenarios in which this is a healthy use of the ability to ban a speaker.
3. What can be done to ensure that ability to ban from conference pulpits is used appropriately? I have deep respect for those who work on the verbiage of our Church Manual. It is a good book! It has quite literally saved my ministry on more than one occasion. Every church member interested in the health of the church would benefit from reading it. Furthermore, having sat on many a policy writing committee, I know from arduous experience how difficult it can be to find the right words to express the right ideas and practices in the right spirit. Thus, my desire in answering this third question is not to criticize their work, but rather, to humbly suggest some additions to it.
Improving the Already-Good Policy
As currently worded, the policy (see quotation of it above) is indeed a good one. The challenge is that according to the current wording, none of the three abuses I mentioned above (unilateralism, unsound reasoning, and secrecy) are—technically speaking—in violation of the policy, for the policy is somewhat general in its definitions and prescriptions. Therefore, there are some additions to it that I humbly offer in hopes of reducing the potential for abuses, as well as heightening the potential for a properly applied ban to showcase its virtue. Three such additions come to mind:
1. Add a section in the Church Manual specifically dealing with the banning of a speaker from all conference pulpits. This will give opportunity to provide specific guidance for what really is one of the nuclear options of Adventist policy. The magnitude of the public relations generated from such a ban, and the potential damage—even if entirely justifiable—it may do to a banned speaker’s reputation would seem to justify an additional section.
2. Add procedural checks and balances for implementing the ban appropriately. The wording of such an addition is of course hardly up to me. But it seems that the following ideas might be helpful, however they are to be expressed:
The three conference officers (president, secretary, and treasurer) may together agree to implement a conference-wide speaker ban on any individual at their discretion.
Under extreme circumstances (see suggestion 3 below), a ban may be implemented immediately, without contacting first the individual to be banned or the conference executive committee.
If a ban is implemented immediately, the conference president shall, within 24 hours, notify the conference executive committee of the ban, and convene a meeting of the executive committee (virtually, in-person, or hybrid) within seven days, the purpose of the meeting being to confirm or repeal the ban.
If the ban is confirmed, the churches of the conference must be notified within 24 hours of the executive committee’s decision, including the specific reasons for the ban, the term of the ban (indefinitely, one year, etc.), and whom to contact at the conference office with questions.
If extreme circumstances are not present and immediate implementation of the ban is therefore not warranted, the following procedure shall be used:Conference administration shall contact the speaker under consideration, in writing, and inform them of the intent to ban and the reasons for it.The purpose of the ensuing conversation will be, to the best of conference administration’s ability, to confirm or deny the administration’s concerns.The findings generated by this conversation and any other relevant evidence shall be shared at the next regularly or specially called conference executive committee meeting. The committee shall then determine whether the ban is to be implemented, its terms, etc.
Any decision of the executive committee to ban a speaker should be communicated to the churches in the conference as detailed above.
3. Add criteria by which to make a decision to ban. Again, the exact verbiage to be used is above my pay grade. But some wording that reflects the following points may be helpful:
Reasons for conference-wide speaker ban:
The speaker represents a clear and substantial threat to the witness of the church in the areas of doctrine, lifestyle, spirituality, physical safety, or financial integrity.The speaker represents a clear and substantial threat to the appropriate implementation of any duly voted church policy applicable to the local conference.
An immediate banning of a speaker is to be done only if the above reasons represent a clear, substantial, and imminent threat to a local church or churches.
Conference officers and executive committee members shall diligently ensure that bans are not implemented based on personal animus, differences of opinion that are not essential to local church health, or fear of losing personal influence in the conference.
Keep the Ban—and Keep It a Blessing!
I think I speak for nearly all of us when I say that I wish the speaker ban was not needed as a tool in a local conference’s toolbox. But history can be a hard teacher, and through great difficulties in the past, we know that sometimes even the extreme measure of a ban must be taken to ensure that local churches stay healthy. May God continue to grant our leaders and each of us the wisdom to apply it in a way that serves His purposes only.
[*] In Review and Herald, Dec. 20, 1892.