Is the Church Manual worth fighting over?

[lazarus]

A church near me is in a fight over the church manual. This church has adopted a structure that is not the one described in the church manual. Some folks are writing letters, calling the Conference, Union, Division and GC. Its getting rough.

Is the Manual a guide or is it a prescription for the operation of all SDA churches?

Is it worth fighting over?

[Dr. Shane]

I believe it is a guide. Is it worth fighting over? I think that depends upon what is meant by the word "fight". If we are talking about heated debates at the local church level, I will say yes. Writing letters to the Conference and Union to me seems to indicate people that don't know what it means to serve together. The church is a WE organization not a ME organization. That means not MY WAY but OUR WAY. Of course I don't know the specific issues but I can give a couple of examples.

1 - The order of service. The Church Manual gives a couple of examples as to the order of service. Some members may want to follow that and others may want to invent their own thing. That subject is certainly worthy of a debate on the local level. People writing the Conference and Union because they didn't get their way seems a bit immature.

2 - Disfellowshipping a member. Perhaps a member has done something worthy of being disfellowshipped and clearly calling for such action in the Church Manual. This too would be worthy of debate on the local level. If the local church decides not to disfellowship the person, I hardly think writing the Conference or Union is justified.

[Key Guy]

So, if it's just a guide we should pick and choose the parts of the Manual with which we agree? No wonder there may be fighting over it's authority. But, then Christians (even Adventists) fight over the Bible because it's perceived by some as just a guide, too.

If the Manual is meant to be a guide, then we need to remove Bible and SOP quotes from it. That would remove any claims of church authority contained in it. But since the GC decided to include references to Scripture and SOP to support its authority over governance of the church (among other things), we have 2 choices: accept it fully as the authority in structure and church government, or reject it fully and not bother to even quote it. Any stance between the two invites dissension.

Les

[Dr. Shane]

That is how I understand it. The Bible alone is infallible. The Church Manual is a guide for the church. Ultimately we meet as a church and make decisions as a church. As an individual we may not agree with a decision made by our local church but we go along with it in humility because the church is a WE organization and not a ME organization.

[Key Guy]

That means you think the Manual is a collection of suggestions? That view only invites problems. If half of the body views it as a guide and the other views it as a source of authority in the structure and government of the church, we end up with chaos.

That hardly sounds like a reflection of God's kingdom.

I'm not advocating the Manual as equal to Scripture. But it should be a source of authority. That means the rules contained therein should come with discipline to keep the organization operating with consistency. Even this Forum has rules and discipline. If we only operated this Forum by following suggestions, it would be a disaster in no time.

If each church decided to reject or accept the Manual as they see fit, oh wait!... that's what they are doing! That's why we have such a mess, especially in the NAD. The end result is an obvious loss of efficient evangelism and growth.

-L-

[Key Guy]

Quote:

Is the Manual a guide or is it a prescription for the operation of all SDA churches?

Is it worth fighting over?

There wouldn't be fighting like there is if the conferences and unions had the guts to follow the Manual and enforce it with equal justice. It's been stripped by weak-minded church leaders.

[Dr. Shane]

The Church Manual is an authoritative guide.