Does the General Conference have any say in your employment? Have they ever? What happens if they feel you are not representing Adventism?

AND are you paid somehow by Tithe Dollars??

Under the law, Federal chaplains must be endorsed by a recognized endorsing agency. One cannot begin employment without that endorsement. If the endorsing agence revokes that endorsement, the chaplain in teminated, and has no legal recourse as this is grounded in law.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church in the United States has a recognized endorsing agency in the Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries. Presently this is headed up by Dr. Feldbush, and the recognized endorsing agent is Dr. Stenbakken. In less than a month, the position of endorsing agent will transfer to a retiring Army Colonel, Chaplain.

Under the provision of the law, to be employed by the Federal Government, a recognized endorsing agent must file with the government a Cirtificate of Endorsement. This document states:

a) That the individual has permission to be employed as a SDA chaplain, and the limits of that employment.

b) That in the eyes of the denomination, this individual meets the requirements of the employing governmental agence to be a chaplain.

c) That this individual is authorized to perform all of the sacramental/religious functions of a clergyperson of that denomination.

d) That this individual is willing to operate in a pluralistic ministry with people of other denominations, and faiths.

When that endorsing agency revokes that endorsement, the individual is terminated as quickly as can be adminstratively effected. The revocation of the endorsement is cause. No other explaination is either required or given.

Yes, the SDA church has terminated the employment of some SDA chaplains. I belive that in some cases the Church has revoked the endorsement. I am aware of one case in which a SDA was serving in the U. S. Army without an endorsement, due to an administrative error. When that was discovered, steps were taken to get him out, and it happened. [NOTE: The administrative error was on the part of the Church. The Army thought that the person was endorsed, and the Chruch thought he was not.]

In other cass the SDA church has worked with a chaplin to obtain his consent to voluntarly leave as a chaplain, at a time mutually agreed upon by he and the Church. With the knowledge that I have of several of these I can state the SDA Chruch has worked in a very humane manner to be helpful in people involved in such situations.

Many of you now that I am divorced, and remarried. At the time of my divorce I was one of 8 SDA Chaplains in the Army. Of these 8, I was one of 4 involved in a divorce. I became the only one of these to maintain my credentials, and to continue on in the Army as a chaplain. But, in some of those other cases, the decision was an individual one by the chaplain to leave the chalaincy, and not one in which the church revoked their endorsement. I am personally aware of one case where the actions of a family member were a substantial part of a SDA chaplain leaving the chaplaincy. In that case the denomination worked in a very humane way to deal with the situation. While those actions of a family member were a substantial part, all agreed that the chaplain should not continue to be a chaplain. At an agreed upon time, that took place.

The SDA Church takes very seriously the obligation that its chaplains have to: a) live a life in accord with SDA thinking for its clergy, and b) to teach according to SDA thought. I am aware of a case in which a young enlisted person wrote a letter to the General Conference in which he made certain charges against a military chaplain stationed in another country. The General Conference sent, at their expense, a person to that country to thoroughly investigate the situation and to determine the truthfullness of the charges. After investigation of the charges, the enlisted person acknowledged that he had intentionally lied about the chaplain, because he did not believe that the chaplaian should be a SDA minister, and he wanted to charge him with something that would cause him to be removed. The result of that was that two other denominational employees were returned to the United States for their involvement in that situation. The General Conference advised all three to apologize to the chaplain involved, and to all of the people whom they had told the false charges. One person apologized to the chaplain. But, all refused to apologize to anyone else.

No, I am not paid by tithe dollars, or by any other SDA funds. I am paid by Federal tax dollars.

To add a little to my comment above:

During my entire 18 years as an Army chaplain I was issued the credentials of an ordained minister by the General Conference. At the time of my retirement (Yes I am a retired Army officer.) some adminstrative changes in policy came into existance. At that time my credentials lasped, and the General Conference did not further issue me credentials, but continued to issue me the legal Certificate of Endorsement. This continued for a number of years. After a period of time, policy changed. I presently hold the credentials of an Ordained SDA minister, issued by the General Conference. It is expected that sometime in 2006, another organization of the SDA Chruch will issue my ordained minister credentials, and I will then no longer have them issued by the General Conference. But, these are just administrative changes in policy.

Would the fact that you are paid by federal tax dollars be an infringement upon the principle of separation of church and state and thereby represent a conflict of interest as it regards the historic mission and message of the SDA Church?

Respectfully,

Dennis

Dennis:

Your questions are very valid:

Re: Compromise: I will expand your question into two parts, the one that you asked, and a second one that you did not.

a) There can always be a posibility of compromise due to employment. This can even happen due to employment by the denomination. Denominational empolyment can place pressure on an employee, through the supervisor (Conference President if a pstor, or other administrators) to in some way do something that the individual feels is a compromise. The ultimate resolution to that lies with the personal integrity of the person involved. We have seen people in denominational employment, due to their own level of integrity, accept personal loss rather than to compromise. We have also seen people removed (by God!) due to their decision to compromise.

If you read through what I have posted here, you will make your own decision as to whether or not I have compromised in this manner.

2) Compromise of the historic message of the SDA Church. My posiiton is that one does not have to make this compromise, and this issue is not a major problem. I personally feel that the first one is more of a problem, and that it exists, as I have stated, in denominational employment, as well as outside of it.

I strongly suspect that you feel otherwise. I do not intend to debate you on this point. That would involve a discussion of what is the historic message of the SDA Church. It would also involve a discussion of what might be considered a compromise.

I think that you and I would disagree on that point. So, as far as I am concerned, I will not attempt to change your opinion.

To be very clear: The questions that Dennis has asked are valid questions, and apropriate to ask.

Dennis also asked about the seperation of Chruch and State.

That is a legal question that may be determined by the courts. It is not a theological question, at least on some levels.

A book has been published that discusses the legal aspects of the 1979 filing of Katcoff v. Marsh in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It was the intent of Joel Katcoff and Allen Wieder to ask the Court to declare the United States Army Chaplaincy illegal under the so-called establishment clause of the First Ammendment to the U. S. Constitution, and to have the Federal Government prohibited from spending tax dollars to support the Army chaplaincy. If the plaintiffs won, it was expected that all other Federal Chaplaincies would also be challenged, and then, possibily other governmental chaplaincies.

You can read about this case in the following book:

Drazin, Israel & Currey, Cecil B. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY: THE HISTORY OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE ARMY CHAPLAINCY. KTAV Publlishing House, 1995, 241+ pages.

That book mentions me in a footnote listed on page 232, and referenced from page 205. If you read that footnote, you should agree that I am well aquainted with the aspects of that case.

I will make it brief. The final decision of the court was that Federal tax dollars could be used to support an Army chaplaincy, and that such was NOT a violation of the First Ammendment.

To learn why that is not a violation of the First Ammendment, I am going to ask you to read the First Ammendment. Reflect on the entire Ammendment. Consider what it means, and not just what you have heard said about the establishment clause.

Think about the "freedom of religion" clause and that should give you an ideas as to why it is not a violation of the First Ammendment. At least you will get an idea if you have any understanding of what military chaplains do AND WHERE THEY DO IT.

The result of the Katcoff case is that the expendature of Federal funds to support a military chaplaincy is fairly well settled. I take a personal posiiton that there remain some unsettled issues that may be the focus of future litigation. But, for the moment, that has not happened. Until those issues are litigted, the military chaplaincies are secure, and probably other governmental chaplaincies.

Dennis, purchase the book. Read if you reall want to know and understand what has already been litigated, and decided by the courts.

That case is an interesting case.

Thank you again for asking. Your question was a very good one, and one on which I could extensively talk. AFter all, I have written on it.

FYI: Drazin and Currey are both the primary attornies who defended the Government against the Katcoff case. Currey was employed by the Department of Justice who has the responsibility of defending the Government is such cases.

Brigidar General Drazin is a Rabbi, Army chaplain, attorney, and legal experet in First Ammendment cases. He was called to active duty to work with Currey in defending this case.

Currey between 1968 and 1989 authored nine works that from their titles appear to be historical wooks. Examples include ROAD TO REVOLUTION (1968) and THE CRAFT ABD CRAFTING OF HISTORY (19766).

Rabbi Drazin has authored a number of works such as TARGUMIC STUDIES (1982) and TARGUM ONKELOS TO EXODUS (1990).