He came out the door and followed me down the hall. The steps were rapid, almost a run. I turned round to see who was so persistent in his vigorous pursuit. As he came closer, a moment of perplexity and a hint of fear rushed upon me. His eyes stood out like organ stops. They locked onto mine and would not let loose. Color had rushed to his face. His features were contorted by what I perceived to be a combination of anger and frustration. He spat out the words, a verbal machine gun, each word punctuated by an outward jab of his finger towards my chest. “I have to tell you something,” he said, his voice rising with each word. “Integrity! Integrity! Integrity! We’re seeing a collapse of integrity!”

A few moments before, this conference official had told me that he had had to relieve a successful pastor of his duties and put him on administrative leave. The experience, combined with too many others before, tore at his emotional core. His frustration and anger served to remind him anew how important and how fragile integrity is.

In 2003, a colleague and I were asked by Elder Larry Caviness, Southern California Conference president, to prepare an ethics document for the Southern California Conference. When we shared an early draft with a group of our pastoral colleagues, they gave mixed responses. Several expressed amazement that there was need for an ethics code. “It’s just common sense,” one pastor said. “Why state the obvious?” said another. These responses led to another question: “Why do people in the business of the church violate common sense and obfuscate the obvious?” The answers may lie closer at hand than we wished. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has paid a heavy price for our corporate violation of integrity.

A former classmate of mine, who as an academy and college student was very involved in the church, told me that he and his wife no longer attend the Adventist church. When I asked why, he said that our teachers were not truthful about the church and its teachings. When I asked for specifics, his response was quick and precise: he did not believe the church leaders were forthright in matters relating to Ellen White, the doctrine of the sanctuary and righteousness by faith, eschatological interpretations, and the Sabbath.

He elaborated further. He said we were taught that Ellen White was an infallible prophet who was years ahead of her time in writing about health reform and medical insights. He later learned, he explained, that she plagiarized and was not original in many of her statements. This conversation is not unique. I hear similar remarks from others.

The sanctuary doctrine, age of the earth and the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White are examples of areas of church doctrine where integrity may not be the highest priority. Traditional Adventist teaching on each of the above points of faith has been challenged from within the church and from outside. A growing number of our theologians find our traditional positions on these doctrines untenable, but they cannot say so out loud. To preserve their employment they must pretend complete agreement. At the very least, our young people should be made aware of the significant level of intrachurch controversy that surrounds these doctrines.

When Adventist theologians are asked to defend these unique Adventist teachings they manifest evident unease and an unwillingness to talk on the record. I have personally asked Adventist scholars why they do not submit articles to professional journals on these topics. Their response: “Would you?” They have me!

Science is another problem area. A short earth history, which is promoted by the official church and advocated in academy and college classes, will not wash with many in today’s scientific community. A classmate who is now a scientist asked me, “How can the church expect me to use one part of my brain when I go to church and another part when I go to my office?”

When an organization’s brightest and best are ill at ease with what they are expected to affirm and defend because their sources do not allow them to arrive at their employer’s end points, does not this suggest an integrity problem?

Affronts to the credibility of the church are not limited to the classroom. We who minister in local parishes witness how our members react when church leaders are caught up in moral and ethical transgressions. The negative impact of high-profile church scandals on our members is beyond calculation. These fiascoes erode trust among our people, and people do not give their money to support organizations they do not trust.

A long-time friend described a personal experience. After retirement from a high administrative post in the public school system, this person volunteered to assist a local Adventist school, assuming that church officials acted with integrity. This stereotype was soon shattered. “I felt like cold water had been thrown in my face. I am not sure whether people knew what they were doing was wrong or whether they just didn’t care. This is what frightens me.”

One remedy my friend suggested is for the church to be open. Why is so much done behind closed doors? The Sunshine Laws that govern state entities serve a purpose. “Why can’t the church follow the same process?” my friend asked.

Openness would do more than help prevent the failures of integrity in administrative actions. It would also help prevent the loss of members because of their disillusionment at the discovery that not everything taught in our academy Bible classes is supported by the church’s theologians.

An organization that holds to tradition, despite reliable evidence that counters that tradition, is at risk of alienating a crucial segment of the church: the bright, articulate and educated. When an organization ignores or denies evidence that is contrary to its accepted practice or belief systems, it puts at stake its most crucial asset: integrity.

The Adventist organizational structure is another concern. The local church is the goose that lays the golden eggs. But the goose is ill! The local congregation sends more than half its income to fund the organizational structure and programs. Those who study our system note that Adventists have a hidden mission sstatement that is not publicly acknowledged: The local church exists to support the structures above it. It is commonly understood that an organization with a hidden mission statement is in jeopardy. This practice is counter to organizational integrity.

To initiate change is risky and difficult. To obfuscate or deny there is a problem is a greater risk still. Denial is not a viable option! Openness and an active pursuit of credibility are the only avenues to a healthy future. An organization that prides itself on its integrity and faithfulness to Scripture can do no less.

The conference administrator’s statements that began this article are valid. He has every right to be frustrated and angry when a pastor violates a sacred call. Integrity is the coin of the ministerial realm. Note, however, that misgivings about integrity are not limited to ministerial behavior. Organizational leadership is part of the equation.

Leaders set the moral tone for their organizations. Leaders who demonstrate integrity and who value truth establish the organization on a positive course. When they deviate from a moral course, even in slight ways, they impair their effectiveness. If a leader knows that a system is broken, yet continues as if nothing is awry, his or her lack of action sends a message: The system is more important than people. The system takes precedent over the mission, unless the mission is to support the organization. And here we may be on to the bugaboo that will not go away.

Andrew McGill writes, “Loss of confidence is the critical issue facing leaders in both the private and the public sectors today…. America’s ability to maintain a healthy democratic society and a free-market economy requires leaders who can reestablish public trust by building institutions that are firmly and clearly grounded in the highest ethical standards.”1 McGill’s statement applies doubly to those who lead religious organizations.

Dr. Larry Downing, Ph.D., is pastor of the White Memorial Church in Los Angeles, Calif., and teaches ethics at the School of Business, La Sierra University, in Riverside.

1“Business Ethics Reality Stunned Americans as Enron, Others Misled Investors and Employees,” in Noel M. Tichy and Andrew R. McGill, eds., The Ethical Challenge: How to Lead with Unyielding Integrity, Jossey-Bass, 2003, p. 24.