Will Minnesota Set the Future of Adventism?

[Gregory Matthews]

Ed:

You raise very valid issues.

I also know of some of the same that you have mentioned.

[there buster]

Years ago, in one of those dysfunctional churches, with the head elder in my Sabbath School class on tithing, I began with this statement: "Before this class is over, I hope to persuade you never to give another cent to the Seventh-day Adventist Church." Well, I got his attention.

My point was this: I pay my tithe and give offerings to God, not the church. If I see myself giving to the church, I want a return on my money. If I see myself giving to God, then He is responsible for the outcome.

So, "weak and defective," though it may appear, I still send my tithe to God, via the SDA church.

I do my best to be a responsible church member, raising important issues at business meetings, constituency, etc., but I don't use money as a lever. It's too, too---

it's tacky.

And while I'm speaking of deficiencies, I should tell of a conference president, Van Hurst of Dakota Conference, who is providing real leadership. I gave a men's retreat there, two years ago, and was highly impressed with his efforts to educate and lead the men of his conference, not just placate them. And there are others.

There are many bright spots, not just dismal mediocrity. Both need to be pointed out.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

So, "weak and defective," though it may appear, I still send my tithe to God, via the SDA church

---

If that is where the Holy Spirit is guiding you, go for it.

If that is where tradition and unwillingness to change is guiding you, think about it.

Organizations that are not responsible to their sources of income are organizations that are easily hijacked and looted.

/Bevin

[there buster]

When someone presumed to advise you about your tithing, I responded that it was between you and God.

Please grant me the same courtesy.

[bevin]

I apologise, you are correct.

/Bevin

[cricket]

Quote:

---

Organizations that are not responsible to their sources of income are organizations that are easily hijacked and looted.

---

Unless, these organizations are responsible to God first. And, I do believe that the SDA organization is responsible first to God, then to it's members.

Also, we must remember, that we, as members are a part of the organization. We are the only ones who can make the change from within the organization. Those who choose to leave have no further say.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

We are the only ones who can make the change from within the organization.

---

Changing an organization is much harder than people often realize, be it a denomination, a business, a political system, or a branch of engineering or science.

Business school studies are done on this, and Ph.D's result.

Even organizations that a rapidly and visibly crashing into oblivion have problems changing direction.

Quote:

---

Those who choose to leave have no further say.

---

Once I realized that

(1) I no longer wanted people to join the SDA church, least they have the same bad experience I did, and

(2) I no longer wanted to support with my time or $$$ the planned activities of the denomination, and

(3) I no longer had any belief that I could collaborate with others to effect meaningful change with the level of effort I was willing to apply

then I decided to resign my membership.

Apparently some of the people in Minnesota are part way down this track - they are no longer prepared to fund the activities of higher-up organizations. It is the equivalent of the first step towards resigning - they are hoping that they can get changes, because they are so opposed to the status quo that they are prepared to simply stop funding it.

Now I hang around the fringes watching what is happening, fascinated by the organizational dynamics in action, but no longer caring which particular outcome happens...

/Bevin

[Peter]

Quote:

---

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.

---

This is done to hide ones income. Doctors do this a lot to hide from their churches how much money they make. I have no problem with this practice. Many people pay tithe back to their country of origin as well. I have no problem with that either.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I have read an article somewhere about the Babyboomer vs the Y gereration vs the X Generation.

The baby boomers or those born from 1945 to 1960 tend to have the old fashioned ideas like their parents mostly. They tend to be finished raising families and tend to give more heavily to the church and therefore have more clout with the church as they are the backbone givers.

The Y Generation or those born from 1961 to 1975 or so tend to like more lively music and tend to want to give to selected projects.

The X Generation or those born from 1975-1990 tend to like rocked up music in the church service and have less power as they tend to be just starting out with families and lower incomes and have less to give. The X generation tend to demand more accountablity. This is the generation that distrusts the older generation or gray hairs as the babyboomers are known by the X generation.

Anyway it was an interesting reading. In the age of Enron we have seen how large corporations abuse their power and many younger people see that more in the church under the glare of the modern day headlines.

[Peter]

Quote:

---

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.

---

The conference president could not have enforced that. Churches can play what music they wish without conference interference. This must have been a small conference. A large conference 50 grand is a spit in the bucket. Not worth the effort. Blackmail should not be given into in any case. Next time he will use that again for another reason.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Changing an organization is much harder than people often realize

---

So I've been told.

But I actually changed a law, and one that was as controversial in this state as abortion.

It can be done. One just has to be willing to pay the price.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

The conference president could not have enforced that.

---

What planet are you from?

Not only could he, he did.

[Jeannieb43]

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

But I actually changed a law, and one that was as controversial in this state as abortion.

It can be done. One just has to be willing to pay the price.

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

Are you able to tell us about it?

[cricket]

Back-bone givers. Hmm.

I have served ten years as the treasurer for our local Adventist Community Services organization; I have been an assistant to the treasurer in the local congregation on and off for over 4 years; I have served on the financial committees for both the ACS and the two churches I've held membership in.

In each of these organizations, it has been strict policy of those recording the collections to maintain privacy in who is giving. These dollar amounts are not to be discussed outside of the treasurer's office unless they are discussed as a congregate amount.

While these assumptions you've posted, Peter, may be true as a whole, it should not hold true in the power plays in our local congregations. No one should know who holds the financial "key" to success. No one.

I'm also going to add that these assumptions do not hold for everyone. I, myself, a "Generation Xer" tithe faithfully and give according to the percentage recommendations of the conference. In addition, I also give extra support to the ministries with which I am directly involved.

Perhaps I stand alone in the Generation X crowd. I have been a Stewardship Secretary and am continuing with my focus on financial giving within the church.

If there is a problem with the way people give, it is a problem with the office of Stewardship Secretary. Educating the young--whether it be GenX, GenY, GenZ--is the responsibility of the generations preceeding.

[there buster]

Certainly, but it would be really off-topic.

[Peter]

Quote:

---

While these assumptions you've posted, Peter, may be true as a whole, it should not hold true in the power plays in our local congregations.

---

There are always those who have loose lips. Even if there is not some doctors are self conscience of their incomes. I know of a man who was a tresurer of a mission and he received a lot of income from offerings from doctors from Loma Linda Mecical center. This was in the forum of tithe. These doctors were not even from that part of the country.

Quote:

---

I'm also going to add that these assumptions do not hold for everyone. I, myself, a "Generation Xer" tithe faithfully and give according to the percentage recommendations of the conference. In addition, I also give extra support to the ministries with which I am directly involved.

---

You and I believe along the same lines. I never meant to imply that ALL GenXers believe that day. Just a survey seems to show that a great many do. Of course you will have a a scattering of all types of tithe payers in all the groups. The survey was just showing the general trend of the majority in those groups. Please do not take offense personally.

[Peter]

Quote:

---

What planet are you from?

---

Last I looked from the planet Earth which is the third planet of the Star Sol which is located about 2/3rds from the center of the milky way galaxy.

In Case you did not know this a president does not have dictatorship powers. The conference bylaws while follows Ellen Whites council against Kingly powers forbids that. The true power is in the executive committee of a conference who have the power to remove a president as what happened with the GC president Folkenberg.

But a conference president can intimidate. The case you mentioned this is what happened. Unless someone called him on it and refused to yield to that pressure then the results would be capitualation. as what happend in the case you described.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Not only could he, he did.

---

I am aware of ONLY way that an SDA church can be removed from its membership in a Conference - by a vote of the delegates of the member churches at a duly held constituency meeting.

The Conference President simply does NOT have the power to FORCE this.

If he made it stick, it was with the explicit support of the leadership and delegates of the churches.

The SDA church is not an authoritarian regime, it is as more of a democracy than the USA government.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Peter and Bevin.

I'm impressed with your idealism.

However, you should both be aware of the difference between what the church manual (or any other document) says, and what actually happens.

In theory, you are both correct. In practice, you're dreaming. Many conference presidents (not all) exercised "kingly power" on a regular basis. People are accustomed to it; people expect it. If you protest, YOU are the problem. Let me tell you, this is not theoretical. I've been active in the church since before I first was employed by the church, in 1969. What I'm describing is the norm (but not uniformly so), not the exception.

And by the way, don't you think that most of the congregations in most of the conferences would eagerly vote out any group they thought "unorthodox?" If you don't, you haven't been paying attention. It has already happened more than once, and the threat of it has made changes in other threatened groups.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

People are accustomed to it; people expect it.

---

If the people WANT him to do it, then it is democracy in action.

Quote:

---

If you protest, YOU are the problem.

---

Correct. You need to work with the other people. That is called politics. Going around pointing out mistakes is not the best way to get them fixed.

Quote:

---

And by the way, don't you think that most of the congregations in most of the conferences would eagerly vote out any group they thought "unorthodox?"

---

And yet you continue to support the organization. You complain about the way they behave, and then you continue to provide them with $$$ and man-power.

Either (a) find an effective way to change it, or ( stop trying to change it, or © continue to be frustrated.

Your choice... I made mine. I choose (. I resigned.

/Bevin

[Peter]

Quote:

---

However, you should both be aware of the difference between what the church manual (or any other document) says, and what actually happens.

---

My point is that if people do not call the president on it is human nature when one does not have a supervisor looking over his shoulder one does tend to be like a dictator at times. So yes I agree it does happen.

[Peter]

Quote:

---

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.

--------------------

Gregory

---

What became of this vote. Since I have not heard anything I assume it failed. Did the vote Fail Gregory?