September 1, 1993 - 12:00pm - J. David Newman

When a church employee makes a mistake, do we admit it or cover it up? When a committee discovers it has made a wrong decision, does it inform its constituency? If a church member or employee has a grievance against the church, can an impartial hearing be assured? Why are incompetent employees often transferred to another unit of the organization? Who brought the Davenport scandal into the open: church employees or lay people?

Why does the church seem to be afraid of openness?

Just before I became secretary of the Ohio Conference the officers hired a new principal for one of our academies. He came with high recommendations and an impressive resume. However, before the end of the school year he developed an illicit relationship with one of the faculty and was dismissed. He left his wife and departed for Florida. There he was strangled to death by the husband of another woman with whom he was having an affair.

After the principal’s dismissal, we discovered that similar problems had plagued him at the two academies where he had previously worked. His references contained no hint of any problems.

Just recently two people resigned at an Adventist institution for moral reasons. One of these individuals applied at a number of our institutions for a position. The letters of recommendation gave this person high marks for leadership, knowledge of Scripture, and spirituality. There was no hint of any moral problems.

Once I sat on a committee that was asked to authorize several hundred thousand dollars to hire a particular firm. We were reluctant to vote this money and were moving toward a negative vote when the presenter told us that the firm had already been hired and was busy at work. The presenter was embarrassed and committee members were angry. How much better it would have been if the presenter had been candid from the beginning. He probably hoped that we would vote the money without knowing that the authority of the committee had been preempted.

Another committee I sat on was asked to vote $500,000 for a special project. After much discussion, the chairperson of the committee realized that we were moving toward a negative vote. He told us that if we voted no, several church representatives would have to be immediately recalled from a country overseas where they were already negotiating the use of the money. Action had already been taken on the assumption that the committee would rubber-stamp the decision.

I and perhaps the reader could cite many more examples. Why does the church have a problem with candor? There are several reasons.

* We believe in being positive. It is always much more pleasant to give good news than bad news.

* We are often the best practitioners of what counselors call “denial.” If we deny there is a problem, as the alcoholic does, then perhaps the problem will vanish and we will not have to deal with it.

* We do not understand how to manage conflict. Most people practice either aggressive and often hostile behavior, or more commonly, withdraw and assume a passive stance.

* It is embarrassing to admit a mistake might have been made, especially if the group has prayed for divine guidance.

* Since we say we are the remnant church, we are not supposed to make mistakes.

* Since no provision has been made for public dissent, it is easy to become overconfident and even intolerant of other views and perceptions; therefore there is no need for candor.

* Since the church has so many critics already, it must “circle the wagons” and defend itself at all costs.

Because the church is so afraid of candor it is very difficult for church publications to publish much in the way of bad news. Some church publications will not even print letters to the editor because they don’t want anything negative appearing. Yet without all the facts—with only partial information—we may hire the wrong person, vote the wrong decision, or refuse to rectify a mistake.

The Associated Church Press in its Standards of Ethics and Professional Practice declares:

Disciplined journalistic curiosity seeks out information and insight in the service of the reader and the common good, out of the knowledge that the individual readers, the ultimate ‘consumers’ of journalism, need truth to form their opinions and conduct their lives in consonance with God’s will, and that society as a whole, and each community within society, specifically the churches, need trustworthy sources of information and interpretation in order to function as community.

As Jesus so succinctly stated: “The truth will set you free” (John 8:32 NIV). The Bible reveals a history of candor. It did not gloss over the sins and problems of its heroes. Paul says, “Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body” (Ephesians 4:25 NIV). When we refuse to be open, when we cover things up, we create a credibility problem. People wonder what we are hiding; are we covering up for someone in authority? Whom are we protecting? It may not always be the good name of the church.

There is no effective platform within the church from which to voice contrary views and opinions. Government has what is called the loyal opposition which acts as a check on the party in power. This group is not assumed to be disloyal because it opposes some of the decisions taken. Here are some suggestions on how we could have a better system of checks and balances in the Adventist church.

1. A special grievance officer. This independent individual is assigned to talk to persons about grievances that can be revealed best outside normal channels. An example is the inspector-general in the Army.

2. A feedback representative. This person must be a member of the group from which feedback is desired. His or her role is not secret, and the person must have the confidence of the group. The group should select its representative.

3. An ombudsman. This person is a third party, one who is not part of the establishment, one to whom complaints may be addressed. He or she has no authority in the organization other than the right to investigate and to publicly reveal his or her findings.

4. An open door policy. This requires specific, regular times when administrative personnel are available to listen to their subordinates.

5. Town hall meetings. Administrators meet in various sections of the field-listening, reporting, and answering questions.

6. A “devil’s advocate.” One member of the organization is appointed to critique the results of the decision-making so that all sides can be aired. This would help prevent group-think.

7. An ad hoc task force. This short-term committee is set up to study a particular problem or situation. It dissolves once its task is done.

8. Independent church paper. Begin a new publication that can investigate and report on events in the church with complete editorial freedom.

Administrators may not like publications like Spectrum and Adventist Today because they report on things they would rather keep hidden from public view. But members who pay the bills have the right to know how their money is being spent and why particular decisions are made. If the church does not provide this kind of outlet, publications will arise independent of the church that may report the news fairly or from a distorted perspective.

Paul likens the immature church to one taken in by “the cunning and craftiness of men,” but says the mature church should be able to “speak the truth in love… and grow up into Him who is the Head, that is, Christ.” (Ephesians 4:14,15, NIV)