Will Minnesota Set the Future of Adventism?

[Gregory Matthews]

On April 17, the Minnesota Conference is scheduled to meet in their regular Constituency Meeting. Will the members vote on a revolutionary proposed change to its Constitution, or will Church authorities prevent the members from voting on it? Knowledgeable people doubt that members will be allowed to vote on it.

However, if the members are allowed to vote on it, and if it passes, neither of which might happen, that action will undoubtably permantently change the face of Adventism in the United States.

One of the Minnesota congregations has submitted a proposal for a change in Bylaws to the Conference Constitution and Bylaws committee. The committee voted to place the proposal on the agenda with a recommendation that it be defeated. Due to the issues that it addresses, and the magnitude of the change that it would affect, all the way up to the General Conference, many believe that the Constituency will not be allowed to vote on the proposal.

Briefly, the proposal, if accepted would make the following changes to the Constitution:

a)The Conference Constitution, and Bylaws, would overrule policies, etc. of higher level administrative organizations.

The Conference would be required to return 75% of the tithe revieved to each church that sent the tithe to the Conference, within 60 days of reciept by the Conference. The Conference could only deduct the cost of pastoral salary and benefits from the 75%.

c) The local chruch could use the 75% returned tithe in any manner that tithe is used by higher level organizations. E.g. If a higher level organization is known to pay janitors from tithe, so could the local chruch.

d) The local Conference would be limited to the retention of 25% of the tithe.

NOTE: The issue of tithe going to the Union, NAD, and the GC seemingly is not addressed, but I assume must come from the 25%.

e) The Conference would be required to provide each congregation with an accounting of the tithe recieved by the Conference, and that returned to the local congregation

Folks, the passage of this probably has chruch administrators shaking in their boots. If it were to become the accepted practice Adventist mission would never again be the same.

NOTE: While I am the author of the above, I am endebted to ADVENTIST TODAY for the information on this. Intereted parties can request the full documentation from AT.

[Dr. Shane]

Actually if it passes more people may start paying their tithe to the organized church.

[there buster]

As a church planter, and as someone who spends a lot of time reaching out to postmoderns, this measure strikes me as irrelevant.

Oh, I know that the use of the tithe is a white-hot issue, and one of the issues that precipitated the break with Ron Gladden.

And I certainly don't pretend that the upper reaches of the church are models of either vision or efficiency.

But local churches retaining the tithe will only concentrate more power there. IMO, the local congregations are one of the biggest roadblocks to progress in the NAD.

Local congregations no longer see themselves as disciples. They see themselves as consumers of religious services. More money, more consumption.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone from a tiny church that hasn't changed in thirty years, say, "I pay my tithe, why don't we have a pastor more often?"

The big churches, with multiple pastors, provide lots of services, and have lots of consumers. Under this plan, they would have more of each.

Many independent ministries soak up millions of dollars from dissatisfied consumers. Yet these traditional means reach only 3-4% of the potential audience, according to Mike Ryan, head of Global Mission.

Existing congregations do more of what we've already been doing. Oh, a few will try innovations here and there. But the vast majority will only plow more money into failed approaches.

On the other hand, Roscoe Howard NAD VP, told me he thought only "economic disaster" would bring about significant change. So maybe it's necessary.

I hope not.

[Peter]

I realize why the church is proposing this. Many people pay a faithful tithe but NOTHING else. The cnurch gets very little from members after this. Then the conference demands the churches support schools etc after that.

But this strikes at a far bigger area.

Tithe is passed onto the NAD and GC. Then the bulk of what the GC gets goes to support the world church. Over 70 percent of every tithe dollar that comes into the SDA church comes from the NAD. If this starts to go to the entire NAD the mission work world wide will collapse. The world church cannot support the world mission work without the tithe from the NAD.

Quote:

---

The Conference would be required to return 75% of the tithe revieved to each church that sent the tithe to the Conference, within 60 days of reciept by the Conference. The Conference could only deduct the cost of pastoral salary and benefits from the 75%.

---

Secondly even in a conference the tithe from a rich church helps to support the work at a poorer church. If 75 percent of the tithe is sent back to the church that paid it this would only benefit the richer larger congregations. Even the work within a conference would callapse if this is allowed to pass.

Unfortunately only a third or less of members pay a tithe at all. I have read that if every member paid a faithful tithe then no SDA student would have to pay tuition. That there would be funds to pay for every students tuition and teachers and pasters salary. But this is not the case. People do not pay a faithful 10 percent tithe on their income.

The problem is does the churches have a right to override world church policy. If this is allowed to happen they why not allow womens ordination. After all individual conferences can just over ride the World churches view on this and so forth. Who has the ultimate decision on this.

A conference

Or

The world church.

[Gregory Matthews]

Peter has correctly stated the impact on the world chruch, as well as in the local Conference, if this were to become the norm.

I will suggest that if it passes in MN, it will immedately advocated elsewhere in the NAD, and potentially become the norm in the NAD.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

The problem is does the churches have a right to override world church policy. If this is allowed to happen they why not allow womens ordination. After all individual conferences can just over ride the World churches view on this and so forth. Who has the ultimate decision on this.

---

The answer to this question is very clear.

An individual gets to do what ever they want. They can apply for membership in a local SDA congregation.

The local congregation can accept into membership anyone they want. The congregation can apply for membership in an SDA conference.

The SDA conference is a collection of congregations. They can accept into membership whomever they want. They can apply for membership in a Union, which in turn can apply to a Division, which in turn can apply to the GC.

If the individual wants to put their tithe towards buying a steeple with a cross on top for their local congregation, they are welcome to.

If the congregation decides to cancell the individual's membership, they are welcome to.

If the congregation wishes to send NONE of the money marked 'tithe' to the conference, they are welcome to do that also. Of course they should be careful to make this clear to the donors, of else they are guilty of theft.

If the conference wishes to send some/all of it back to the local church - or to a different church - or to use it to buy lottery tickets - they can. Of course it will require a vote by the constituency to do this.

*SO* it is clear that, given the legal way the SDA church is organized, what Minnesota is proposing is okay. The fact that it may change some of the existing practises is a strong indication that anybody who backs these changes opposes the existing practises.

And the fact of the matter is - the existing practises are not fully supported by the membership. Maybe it is time to seriously consider why, and what should be done, rather than just doing terribly bad and self-serving exigeses of OT texts and silly stories about farms being missed by tornados.

/Bevin

[Gregory Matthews]

Bevin:

One small addition to your post, that I think you would agree with:

If the congregation choses it may leave the fellowship of the local Conference. And if it does what you have mentioned, the Conference could expel the congregation.

If the Conference did as you have stated, the Union, could expell the Conference.

What is the likelyhood of that happening? That is another issue.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Peter has correctly stated the impact on the world chruch, as well as in the local Conference, if this were to become the norm.

---

Oh, I agree. But it's been heading this direction for 20+ years. NAD has always been the financial engine for the world church. The last time I saw figures, NAD supplied 90% of the GC budget.

But this measure is only an extension of the consumer church. Most local congregations strongly resist the idea of new congregations in their "territory," especially if they are somehow different in approach or what's called "worship style." If we won't fund innovative outreach even to our closest neighbors, and in many cases to our own children, then it's only so long before we won't fund it anywhere in the world.

This proposal is simply one symptom of a deeper problem. If it passes, it will precipitate an acute crisis which has been brewing for decades. If it fails, or worse, if it is not allowed to be voted upon, people will keep voting with their dollars, and this chronic problem will slowly become a crisis at a later date.

History affirms that in the 1920's, NA switched from a church-planting, discipling church into a consumer, "fee for services" church. A little of the old ethos hung on for a generation or so. But the fundamentalism of the early 20th century (which affected all denominations) infected Adventism, and with the exile of A.G. Daniells, fostered a rigid, legalistic theology in many quarters.

This came to a head with the publication of "Questions on Doctrine." This began a period of doctrinal dispute which included the Brinsmeads and Des Ford. It took a while, but all this bubbled to the surface, and hit the church hard in the late '70's and '80's. Coupled with financial scandal in the Davenport affair, which was then covered up by the GC Exec. Cmtee. All this eroded lay support of the larger denomination. Reorganization at Conference and Union levels at the same time really alienated a now thoroughly consumerist church.

Meanwhile, the GC, which had reorganized 4 times in 40 years from 1863 to 1903(? not certain about that date; it was in the range of 1901-1904), hasn't reorganized since. That was just symptomatic of increasing rigidity in the upper reaches of the Church.

And there are many other factors. The loss of political power, with NAD now somewhere from the third to the fifth largest division, means that other parts of the world now determine GC policy. With a consumerist NA church, that means that people aren't getting the clout they want from their money. I don't like this attitude, but I see it.

Anyway, all this has just been waiting to come to a head. If not now, then soon.

I'm no prophet, and would be delighted to be wrong about this.

My best outcome? I 'think' it would be best if this came up for a vote and barely failed, which would raise alarm bells all the way up. Maybe then the NAD would begin to face reality.

And I want to point out, by the NAD I don't mean Don Schneider, etc. I think they are aware of the problem. I mean the rank and file of the NAD, laity, clergy, and especially conference presidents. Too many conference presidents (and one would be too many) have been more concerned with getting re-elected than with educating and leading.

Well, what isn't done easily under favorable conditions will have to be done with difficulty under crisis conditions.

[Gregory Matthews]

Ed, you have given us a lot of good analysis.

I also think it has been building to this point for some time.

[Peter]

Quote:

---

This proposal is simply one symptom of a deeper problem. If it passes, it will precipitate an acute crisis which has been brewing for decades. If it fails, or worse, if it is not allowed to be voted upon, people will keep voting with their dollars, and this chronic problem will slowly become a crisis at a later date.

---

I doubt the whole church voted for this. Most congregrations vote for members to represent them and those members vote on changes to the constitution. Similar to our congress voting for the laws of this land that we do not have a direct vote on.

I would suggest that if this passes in April that the world church would veto it in July in Saint Lewis. Then we would have an authority issue.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I doubt the whole church voted for this.

---

Oh, I'm certain they did not. But that only highlights the problem. The people who get repeatedly sent to consituency meetings are the "older brothers," the pillars of the church ("they've been holding things up for years")--usually the most active members, and almost always the financial stalwarts.

That hints that this is a deeply ingrained problem, most likely shared by many others whom they have seen at past constituency meetings.

A GC veto will not solve the problem. These very upset people will express themselves somehow, probably with dollars.

[Peter]

Quote:

---

A GC veto will not solve the problem. These very upset people will express themselves somehow, probably with dollars.

---

Since only one church brought this up I would think the easiest solution would be for the constituency committee to just not allow this to come to a vote as this proposal is out of policy. This is done a lot in our church when rebel congregrations propose radical proposals that is out of policy with the world church votes. The world church has already voted how the tithe is to be distributed. Already there is a plan to have more of the tithe stay in the local conferences but this is a gradual event over several years. It is not done all at once.

What this church proposes will shut down a lot of schools that depend on conference subsidies which comes from tithe to support their schools. Also many pastors will be laid off from small churches as the tithe from larger churches helps to support the smaller ones.

Our church believes in sharing the wealth. The larger richer churches helps to support the smaller poorer churches. This policy if if passes will only pit the rich churches vs the small and poorer churches.

[there buster]

I understand what this proposal means.

It's even more crucial to the world church. Since 90% of the GC budget comes from NA, a 75% cut of that 90% would amount to a 67%+ cut to the GC budget. That would have ramifications even more grave. The Adventist Review, publishing houses, colleges and universities-- it would reak havoc around the world.

I think the best thing would be to let it come to a vote, and then veto it at GC, if needed.

If it is held by only a small group, then it will fail at the conference level. Whether it fails or not, at least they would have some measure of its level of support, and the unhappy ones would have registered their discontent, which might serve as something of a safety valve.

If it succeeds, legal haggling would no doubt prevent it from being implemented before the GC session. It could then be vetoed at GC, but with the salutory effect of making the world church fully aware of it.

The problems represented by this proposal will have to be addressed. Either scenario (failure at local, or veto at GC) would raise awareness and give leadership time to address the issues and educate the constituency before the next vote.

I may be wrong, but I fear suppressing it will only increase its intensity.

[Peter]

Another point that should be taken in consideration by the Minnesota conference is that 7.3% of tithe is paid to pay for the pre 2000 retirement plans for church workers who are on the old retirement plan. Another 2.2% of tithe goes to pay for medical benefits for retired SDA workers. This is for the world wide church. That comes to 9.5% total of tithe that goes to medical and retirement benefits of retired SDA workers.

TO mess with the tithe one messes with a who slew of benefits and funding to schools and churches both in the conference and world wide.

[bevin]

Thank you Gregory, yes that is an important extension of my point that I fully agree with.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

7.3% of tithe is paid to pay for the pre 2000 retirement plans for church workers who are on the old retirement plan

---

a very important point - and a strong reason to be thankful for the change to the retirement scheme. It is possible that people on the old scheme could indeed be very badly hurt if the status-quo gets too badly upset.

This was one reason I was FOR the change to the retirement plan. It frees the organization from one of the constraints against change - but unfortunately it will take about 20 years to kick in.

One of the biggest challenges the SDA church faces is the younger generation's willingness to vote with their feet and their pocket books.

I voted with my pocket book for years - since the New England Conference, AUC, NAD, and GC were basically wasting the tithe and other money; I paid most of my tithe directly into the local church budget as 'general expense'.

When I finally got fed up with their behaviour also, I voted with my feet and left.

Never once did people seriously ask me what it would take for me to support the higher organization, or to keep me in the local one.

Everyone is happy with the organization - except the people who are paying for it. That is a receipe for disaster.

Minnesota is on the right track - show your donors WHY they should give, not try to guilt them into giving.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

With respect to Bevin's perspective in the post immediately above, I'm responding to the rest of the thread, not that post specifically, so please read it that way.

I think this whole issue speaks to an attitude problem. Yes, it's appropriate to be aware of some kind of 'accountability' (how I loathe that word!) for how tithes etc. are spent. But in the final analysis, the 'accountability' of each one of us is to bring it in, and the 'accountability' of those in the organisation is to use it responsibly.

It comes back to something Ed (I think) said here "is it 'fee for service'"? Or is it sacrificial giving? It is about value for money, or is it about letting go?

We have fallen in with our culture's values and a level of selfishness. Why would it be a problem if the richest churches subsidised the poorest, and so on up to conference and division level? It's God's money, and it makes sense that those who have most to give help those who have less.

The push to keep the tithe local is about selfishness, and about deciding what is to be done with 'our' money. But tithes and offerings *aren't* our money, they're God's.

We need to pray for the kind of heart God has, pouring out blessings without stint and with liberality and an open heart. How many of our schisms would be avoided if *everyone* opened his/her heart and opened his/her fist and was ready to let go of the tithes and offerings to serve God's purpose of telling all the world?

[Peter]

Quote:

---

I voted with my pocket book for years - since the New England Conference, AUC, NAD, and GC were basically wasting the tithe and other money; I paid most of my tithe directly into the local church budget as 'general expense'.

---

Can you support your actions from Scripture. Can you support not paying tithes because you do not like how it is being spent.

Remember the story of Eli and Samuel and Eli's sons. Eli Sons were priests and they were abusing their positions by sleeping with the women who came to worship and with the women who worked at the temple. All of Israel was aware of this but still they continued to bring their tithes to support the temple dispite Eli's sons.

Are we to do any different. Who are we to judge what is right or not with the church. The whole church is doing what they think is right but still there will be some abuses of the tithe. Just remember that the confernece only keeps 54% of the tithe. The rest goes upstairs and supports the world church as well. The baptisms you see being done out in the world church is made possible by the tithes from the NAD. We give about 80% or more of the tithe from the NAD. And that with only 6% of the population of the SDA world church.

Our tithes support the entire world church as well as the local conference and schools. Does God give a care what we think when it comes to Gods commands to pay tithes and offerings.

[Guest]

If this is the future...

turn out the lights and let the fat lady sing

http://www.clubadventist.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/155150/an/0/page/0#155150

[Jeannieb43]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Can you support your actions from Scripture. Can you support not paying tithes because you do not like how it is being spent.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I don't think the command to "bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse" defines just which storehouse is intended.

In other words, does anyone think that the organizational tithing disbursement structure of our church is inspired by God?

Is it within the purview of the command for those tithes to be paid to support independent ministries [perish the thought!] for example?

[Jeannieb43]

IMHO, this trend is demonstrative of the changes occurring in our generation across the board. For example, today in the law, "the consumer is boss." ... The consumer/patient no longer has to take the medicine his doctor prescribes. S/he has the right to refuse treatment at any point, as long as s/he is mentally competent. ... The consumer/client doesn't hesitate to sue his own attorney if he receives less than a favorable result in his lawsuit -- or his own accountant if his tax return is audited by the IRS.

These are the days when grassroots demonstrations are common.

I've been hearing complaints from church members for more than 25 years about how the conference handles the tithe funds. This comes from the membership who feel they are supporting "top-heavy" administration. There have been calls for years, to dissolve the Union Conferences, as being redundant organizationally in this day of speedy travel between states.

In other words, how can we justify retaining the organizational structure of 150[?] years ago, when nothing else around us has remained static? Change is bound to occur. I don't think that means the changes are sacrilegious.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Supporting tithe diversion from scripture:

1) There are many ways that an individual can pay tithe that are in accord with Scripture without paying directly to the Conference in which that person lives.

E.g. I know of people who have sent tithe directly to an organized Conference located in a country in which they did not live. I think that most conservative SDAs, even if not approving of such, would consider it to be Scriptural. I also know of people who send their tithe to a local church in another Conference.

2) Many of the present generation of SDAs, do not consider the idea that the so-called "storehouse" is a local Conference. Others disagree with this point of view. Which is correct is not important for this post. My point is that many who use their tithe in non-traditional ways beleive that they are acting in accord with Biblical teaching.

The bottom line for me is that the SDA Chruch faces some very real, and major, financial issues. I believe that these financial issues are going to get worse with the passage of time. One aspect, and there are others, is the common belief of this generation of SDAs that they can personally chose where their tithe should be spent, and that such is Biblical. Again, I am neither saying such is right or wrong. I only say it is part of a very real problem that our denomination faces.

[there buster]

Whether anyone else agrees with Bevin's tithing is immaterial. Tithing is between the individual and God, period (full stop).

I might disagree with his reasoning, but what he does with his money is not my business.

Every time church officials try to involve themselves in this, only mischief results.

Indeed, the church has not fared well in its own dealings (the Davenport affair, Folkenberg's fall). Too many of our pastors at all levels have spent too much time concerned with money, when they should have emphasized spiritual formation, mission, and exercised leadership.

[there buster]

My other reply was to Peter, not you, Gregory.

I agree with the substance of what you posted.

However, I think the Boomers have been bigger culprits. I know of one conference president who was shown a $50,000 check by a donor which he was sending to another ministry. He would not tithe to that conference until the conf. pres. got rid of the "devil music" (i.e., contemporary Christian music) in churches in the conference. The administrator caved.

I know of a severely dysfunctional congregation that chased off a reforming pastor by withholding tithe until they got what they wanted.

I know of a church that was systematically looted to support an independent ministry. The conference looked the other way.

I know of a church where monies were raised for a ministry, then used to finance the pastor's adult sons in a business. The conference looked the other way. (And yes, I do know they were informed).

In too many locations, conferences have squandered members' trust by their unethical efforts to "make ends meet."

As I warned one pastor, "If you keep telling people how important their money is, they'll catch on and decide to hold on to it."

Money follows vision. The lack of funds the church suffers is only a symptom of the lack of vision.

Independent ministries even in cases where they are fundamentally flawed, don't lack for vision. So they prosper financially.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Money follows vision. The lack of funds the church suffers is only a symptom of the lack of vision.

---

Bingo! If you present me with a reasonable vision and a reasonable plan, and evidence of reasonable execution then I will help fund your efforts. Not perfect, just reasonable. And no, I don't have to be the beneficiery. Just knowing that the money is furthering the gospel is enough.

But when I see the money being spent on efforts that the church's own experts say are wrong, which I know are wrong, which have repeatedly failed, and which good people are arguing against doing but being overruled by 'but we always did it this way' thinkers...

/Bevin