Authority and Individual Conscience
While studying church organization and unity, this week, It is worthwhile for all of us to think about the role of government and our individual responsibility – not just secular government but church government as well.
Former United States President Richard Nixon defended himself in the Watergate scandal, by telling one of the world’s most celebrated interviewers, David Frost, “If the President does it, then it is not illegal.” This bold statement shocked David Frost, as he realized no democratic nation has such a law. People around the world were shocked to hear a former world leader make such a claim.
I believe we are keeping a healthy balance of respect for leadership without blind submission when we ask for accountability and checks and balances. In the United States we have a constitution with which the President must conform. This Constitution declares who has the ultimate authority. It reads, “We, the people.” Not “I, the President” or “I, Thomas Jefferson, or Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama.” The power and authority of the Constitution comes from “The People!” Therefore the United States president is not above the law.
In the church we have the Scriptures as our sole authority, and our leaders must be held accountable to them. And the church as a body has authority derived from the Scriptures and the leadership of Jesus Christ as represented in the body of the church.
God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority.” -Ellen White, Last Day Events, p. 56.
Just as in the United States, the President is not above the people, the church leaders are not above the church. While working in a different Adventist conference many years ago, my boss told me to do something on the Sabbath which my conscience did not think was appropriate. My boss told me the conference president expects me to do it so I better do it, no matter what! (Please keep in mind my boss said this and the conference president never actually made such a threat.) I thought to myself, Sorry, the conference president didn’t die for me, Jesus did. I have to be faithful to Jesus.
It does not matter what church affiliation you belong to, you have to follow your conscience and what the Holy Spirit has convicted you is truth based on Scripture. If any leader, secular or ecclesiastical, tries to place his authority above your conscience based on the Scriptures, then consider,
The doctrine that God has committed to the church the right to control the conscience, and to define and punish heresy, is one of the most deeply rooted of papal errors. -Ellen White, Great Controversy, Pages 292-293
Papal errors are not confined to the papacy. The church in Christ’s day was quite papal when they crucified Him even though the word “papal” was not recognized yet.
“The church is built upon Christ as its foundation; it is to obey Christ as its head. It is not to depend upon man, or be controlled by man. Many claim that a position of trust in the church gives them authority to dictate what other men shall believe and what they shall do. This claim God does not sanction. …. Upon no finite being can we depend for guidance. The Rock of faith is the living presence of Christ in the church. Upon this the weakest may depend, and those who think themselves the strongest will prove to be the weakest, unless they make Christ their efficiency. “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm.” The Lord “is the Rock, His work is perfect.” “Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.” Jeremiah 17:5; Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 2:12. (Ellen White, Desire of Ages, p. 414)
Many years ago, I heard the testimony of a church leader defending himself for some shady deals, saying his boss (another church leader) told him to do it, and therefore he had no choice but to obey his boss who had “authority.” I am sure Joab was thinking the same thing when King David told him to put Uriah on the front lines of the war. Please read what God’s messenger has to say about Joab’s rationale.
“And Joab, whose allegiance had been given to the king rather than to God, transgressed God’s law because the king commanded it. David’s power had been given him by God, but to be exercised only in harmony with the divine law. When he commanded that which was contrary to God’s law, it became sin to obey. “The powers that be are ordained of God” (Romans 13:1), but we are not to obey them contrary to God’s law. The apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, sets forth the principle by which we should be governed. He says, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” 1 Corinthians 11:1. (Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 719)
Martin Luther before Emperor Image © Providence Collection from GoodSalt.com
While we need to be respectful of authority, we also need to remember the ultimate source of authority. And while we respect those in leadership, we must remember we are accountable to the Scriptures and God’s church, of which Christ is the Head. Even Martin Luther, the great leader of the Protestant Reformation, tried his best to be respectful of the leaders of his church. It was not his goal to start a new church, much less a movement that would change the world. He sought to bring his leaders into harmony with the Scriptures, and it was only after his efforts to work within his church failed, that he felt he had to make a choice between allegiance to God or allegiance to his leaders. Martin Luther was loyal to the only One who loved him enough to create him and die for him. Likewise we should make every effort to submit to our leaders as far as we can without being disloyal to the One who died for us.
Disputing over biblical truth did not stop with the age of Luther. It is our job to continue to press forward and put into action the truth that is contained in Scripture. And sometimes that makes people uncomfortable. Sometimes it causes heated arguments. And sometimes leaders weigh in with their opinions on one side or the other. Any particular interpretation of a biblical passage is not automatically more “right” because a church leader says so. God has designed the governance of our church in such a way that, if all of us allow the Holy Spirit to lead us individually, the mind of the Spirit will be met through the vote of the church body. And that is why the vote of the General Conference should be regarded as authoritative.
No one person or relatively small group of persons has authority to dictate his or her opinion to the rest of the church body, no matter how strongly they feel on the matter. Leaders need to respect the vote of the members, and members need to respect the position of leadership, as far as it is biblical.
I know people who are afraid to speak up in board meetings or church business meetings, because they feel they are too young or poor, and their influence would not be felt. I have also seen people abusing their age or money to hurt others. I would like to encourage all – no matter how young, old, rich or poor you are – you need to speak your convictions in these meetings. And, no matter how young, old rich or poor you are, you need to respect others when you do. We all have a right and a responsibility to speak, and we all have a responsibility to respect each other. (Ro. 12:10)
(60)
Thanks William.I'm much humbled and blessed by this post full of leadership insight.In any organization,secular or church-based,there has to be a set of rules that guides the smooth running of the organization.In S.D.A,we normally use church manual to guide us on several matters pertaining administrative and many more issues.I've witnessed a scenario where an officer uses the manual upon the ignorance of the laity to score on his agendum.My question is:-
1.When do we use the policy?
2.What are the results of the selective use of policy?
3.Do policy and grace work together? What route does grace take and what route does policy take? Is there an intersection point?
4.Where is the balance?
Hello.
Always reading your soul-searching articles. Again, I agree and grateful for this one.
You wrote:
I believe we are keeping a healthy balance of respect for leadership without blind submission when we ask for accountability and checks and balances. In the United States we have a constitution with which the President must conform. This Constitution declares who has the ultimate authority. It reads, “We, the people.” Not “I, the President” or “I, Thomas Jefferson, or Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama.” The power and authority of the Constitution comes from “The People!” Therefore the United States president is not above the law.
Is there a particular reason you did not use the current president name, Donald Trump?
Thanks
I originally wrote this in 2014.
Thank you for your explanation about the current U.S. president. I was wondering the same. This is another gem. Thank you William.
Great treatment of the topic, William.
You stated: "God has designed the governance of our church in such a way that, if all of us allow the Holy Spirit to lead us individually, the mind of the Spirit will be met through the vote of the church body. "
I would propose that when this is the case, then the GC vote would be regarded as authoritative.
So, how can we know if such has been the case? I would propose that where this the case, there will be (a) consistency with the Bible as both elements are led by the Holy Spirit. And there will be (b) absolute transparency and accountability of process to clearly demonstrate that there have been absolutely no efforts, either direct nor indirect, overt nor behind-the-scenes to in any way influence the outcome of the vote.
With respect to consistency with the Bible, this is where it has become complex because on the one hand there is a sector that is claiming a sound biblical case in regard to the matter. And on the other hand, the Committees set up to investigate this have repeatedly failed to come to a consensus outcome.
And thus, we are at a stalemate position.
As you say Phil, transparency and honesty are the key. I was in a conference many years ago, where delegates met for a regular election to choose officers for the new term. A leader stood up and told the delegates that if they did not re-elect the sitting president that they would all be striking down the Lord's anointed, and God would deal with them accordingly. I was in my early 20s and this was my first time to participate in a conference election. I saw right through the manipulation. Fact was the delegates were God's anointed, and the president had only been "anointed" for his current term and nothing more unless the delegates saw fit to re-elect him. The leader was definitely tampering with the process.
And I think sometimes God expects "coming to a consensus" to take time because there is a learning (and perhaps some unlearning) process taking place. We are in the age where there is an expectation of a quick fix solution to our issues. The fight between the models for light went on for years and is a catalog of challenges and counter-challenges. Looming over the whole discussion were powerful personalities like Newton, who resisted change. Even today we are still learning more about light and ways of describing its behavior.
Growing spiritually both individually and as a church is not the work of a moment, nor should we expect that a decision made yesterday will serve us for the rest of time. I don't mean the great spiritual principles will change but some of the peripherals will grow and develop with time.
Phil, you wrote
I agree totally. And not just that - but there would be a clear majority in any votes taken. Enforcing a relatively close vote (e.g. 60/40) does not bear the stamp of the Spirit, because it is clear that there are differences that need resolving.
Transparency is also key. When we or leaders act according to God's principles, there's nothing to hide. But when manipulation by those in power is evident, member lose confidence for good reason, because manipulation is not a part of God's style of governance.
Thank you William for your beautiful post. What a wise short essay. I live in Australia, and I have observed the attitude of some (not all of course) of our most powerful former leaders who are now retired and yet still wield power and strong influence within their churches, and it's disappointing. They show disrespect and impatience with current pastors and members, when at their old age they should specially know better. I sometimes wonder where their humility has gone, or if they ever really had any. Sorry to be so blunt, but I wish they would understand that their local church is not 'theirs', it is everyones. The more we work together in true fellowship, with humility before God, the better. Let's all work together for the glory of God, putting Him first, regardless of how powerful we once were, or currently are.
Sadly, I have observed since joining God’s Church that often secular organizations I worked for followed Biblical governance principles while certain segments of His organization that I am part of have stumbled at times, and in some instances, almost always. To borrow one of Maurice’s thoughts, there is much learning and indeed unlearning to be done in the area of church governance.
Thanks, William, for your timely post especially when church leadership changes take place in the new year.
William, I admire your courage in taking on such a challenging subject and appreciate the balanced approach you took.
While we can all appreciate the necessity for human leadership--social, political and ecclesiastical, hopefully we all understand the risk that all human leadership of any type exposes followers to. While Scripture upholds respect for various types of human leadership (Eph 6:2; Rm 13:1; 1 Thes 5:12-13), it clearly declares God's leadership alone as inerrant (Isaiah 46:9-10) and unrivaled (Isaiah 46:5-7,3-4). No human leadership or leadership structure of any type falls into its echelon. God does not derive His authority from "We, the People...". God is autocratic.
All human leadership, because of the fallen nature of every human, therefore comes with an intrinsic level of risk. That level of risk is directly proportional to the level and type of human deficiencies present in the leader or the leadership structure. I believe it is our awareness of the benefit-potential versus the risk-exposure, that becomes the cause of elevated anxiety among those who follow a human leader or a human leadership structure. Like the deer, we're aware that approaching the watering-hole in order to live, places us in danger from predators beneath or around the water.
I strongly endorse what you said here, "It does not matter what church affiliation you belong to, you have to follow your conscience and what the Holy Spirit has convicted you is truth based on Scripture." However, your statement is as enlightening, as it is terrifying! It might be worthwhile for your readers to contemplate; what is the "conscience"? What's the benefit(s) and/or risk(s) of permitting individuals to "follow your conscience"? Who or what is the "Holy Spirit"? What is, or should be, the relationship between "conscience" and "Holy Spirit"? How much of the time allotted for an individual's existence, should that individual "follow conscience" or follow "Holy Spirit"? What is "truth"? Does "conscience" or "Holy Spirit" determine what is "truth"? Similarly, does "Holy Spirit" or "Scripture" determine what is "truth"? Does "truth" exist and does "truth" even matter?
Jesus taught that belief occurs somewhere within an individual (Lk 24:25). Knowing what is actual "truth" (Lk 8:12; Jn 8:23-24) appears to have bearing on whether we leave our visit to the watering-hole alive (Jn 6:29) or as a predator's meal (1 Pt 5:6-8). The primary function of human leadership is the care and preservation of the individual follower (Heb 13:17). The end result of all ecclesiastical leadership is the establishment of Christ as the leader of each individual (Eph 4:11-13,15). Any leader or leadership structure that attempts to insert and usurp the legitimate "head of every man" (1 Cor 11:3), does so in opposition to the will of God (Mt 21:38-39; Act 20:30)--and is subsequently judged, by Him, to be apostate (Isaiah 3:12-15; Jude 1:4; 1 Jn 2:18-19).