whether or not a split in our church is impending, i think it may be worth considering whether a split, sparked by the san antonio anti-WO vote and subsequent non-compliance of a number of unions, has merit…as i understand it, annual council will be deciding soon whether to uphold the san antonio vote as the will of the world church - a vote achieved by a margin of 399 votes, or less than 17% of the delegates voting and abstaining - which many assume means inflicting punishment on those few unions who have been openly non-compliant…one line of thinking in support of inflicting punishment is that a lack of enforcement of a GC vote would indicate a pointless unity, which a split, if punished unions decide to leave, doesn’t necessarily worsen…and because of the demographics behind the san antonio vote, there is the possibility that a lack of enforcement could indicate tacit racism, which could initiate a split along an even larger fault line…in view of the strength of these reasons alone, the slim margin of the vote to be enforced is arguably unimportant…surely what matters is a cohesive church with meaningful policies that all who choose to can feel part of…
however - and there is always an important however to consider - an examination of the substance of the vote to be upheld, at a possibly church-transforming cost, shows that the choice to inflict punishment of any kind is almost certainly out of proportion to the presumed crime…in the first place, the biblical merits of the no-vote in san antonio was not agreed to by a majority of our scholars in our seminary and BRI, or select individuals in TOSC, or several of our most important world leaders, and this after decades of purposeful study…what does it say about the value we place on specialized church members who exercise their intellectual gifts for the good of the church when their contribution is summarily overturned in final policy calculations…do we see examples in the bible where success is achieved when the considered counsel of specialists and councilors is trampled underfoot…is this race to the bottom for the sake of artificial democracy really the intention behind our delegate system, and does it bode well for our church moving forward…
but in the second place, the one biblical example we have where there were two strongly held opinions on policy in the church - the council of jerusalem and the question of circumcision - resulted in a dual-policy solution, and not an enforced one-policy solution…i have read several attempts to re-frame james’ verdict as a one-policy solution of non-circumcision for the entire church, and not just the gentiles…but this effort flies in the face of a plain reading of Acts 15 and Galatians 2, and even more so in the case of AA: 188-200…even the secretariat’s own A Study of Church Governance and Unity, September, 2016 references the “twin-track approach” achieved by the apostolic church, p.13…is this dual-policy, set by the apostolic church under the evident guidance of the holy spirit, and recorded in both the bible and egw, something we read for our personal amusement…or is it an example we are behooved to work towards as a church if we are to be in harmony with inspiration…
i have just looked through the recently released 127-page agenda of our upcoming fall council, entitled Reach The World: Faithfulness To His Word…aside from taking in the implications of this title, i have noted, on p.27,our three-part mission statement, part two of which is entitled Our Method, and which opens with the words, “Guided by the bible and the Holy Spirit…”…the readily discerned point to make here is that if we accept that Acts 15 and Galatians 2 are part of the bible, and AA:188-200 is part of the guidance of the holy spirit, our mission statement compels us to be in harmony with these inspired sources…this can only mean that the one-policy solution reached in san antonio must be renounced…we must summon the courage and humility to declare the san antonio vote a mistake, because it has placed us directly out of harmony with the example of the apostolic church…above all, we dare not add sin to sin by enforcing such a vote onto the church, even if it succeeded as a legitimately voted policy…
the fruits of the san antonio vote over the past two years have not been positive, to say the least…our church is arguably more divided than ever…but can there be any doubt why this is so, if the vote which is guiding our general conference, because it is so evidently out of harmony with the bible and egw, is not of god…we are a people of the book…we are the remnant church of Revelation 17…we are god’s chosen agency to enlighten the world of the soon coming of christ…can we not now rise up to our responsibility to undo the profound mistake that took place in san antonio before irreparable harm is done to our church…it is even clearer to me now than it was immediately after the vote in san antonio that, as a church, we have been out-maneuvered by the forces of darkness…and now it is equally clear that our san antonio mistake is poised to inflict lasting damage onto our church…whose interests are being served by a shattered remnant church…is it ours…is it god’s…i submit that our upcoming fall council must include and call for extensive and earnest church-wide repentance and a special seeking after god…we are living in the anti-typical day of atonement…now is not the time to be on the wrong side of the bible or the teachings of our prophet, and in any way attempt to defend that position…we must find the heart to come together as a church and put this horrible episode behind us…i feel hopeful that we can recover quickly, and resume our mission as a united, rejuvenated seventh-day adventist church, if we act now…