2005 General Conference Session in St. Louis

Adventist Today Report 8

Perils of Process III: The Bedeviled 28th Fundamental Belief Is Finally Adopted

This report is a continuation of the trials and tribulations of the beleaguered 28th fundamental belief which was first brought to the floor of the 2005 GC session for consideration on Sunday afternoon, July 3, and presumably adopted on Monday morning, July 4. A transcript of these proceedings is published in the Adventist Review, but this report is based my own observation and notes not on the transcript.

Tuesday morning, July 5

Shortly after the business session resumed on Tuesday morning, July 5, 2005, with Armando Miranda as chairman, Claude Richli, secretary of the East-Central Africa Division, tried to speak to a point of order pertaining to item #207, the 28th fundamental belief which had already been passed the day before. He was ruled out of order by Miranda, since another item (#305) was being discussed. But as soon as that item was passed and the floor was ready to discuss item #306, Richli was recognized again, and he was more persistent. Citing three points of order speakers who had been passed over the previous day, he moved that the 28th fundamental belief be opened for reconsideration.

Citing page 17, Miranda ruled that for parliamentary reasons, it was not permissible for him to make that motion. Richli then immediately requested that he be allowed to change his motion to rescind rather than to reconsider the 28th fundamental belief. There is an immediate second.

Peter Roennfeldt spoke in support Richli, saying that he was one of those who had registered his name prior to the question being moved. He urged that the matter be referred back to committee.

Richard Elofer, President of the church of Israel, spoke in support of the motion, and urged the body not to vote against the motion.

An unidentified man in gold rimmed glasses who looked like he was from the South Asian Pacific, spoke to raise a point of order. Richli’s objection was based on the particular wording of the document, he said, so the motion should logically have been to revise; not rescind.

The chair replied that the motion was nevertheless to rescind.

Ken Stanton, member of the General Conference Executive Committee, voiced support for the motion, citing the protocol that was just passed. In it, he said, the purpose of fundamental beliefs was to benefit the world church. The present work does not meet that test, he said, but with minor changes it would.    

Neil Watts, South Pacific Division, spoke to support Richli, and to affirm that Richli did indeed represent the views of the South Pacific Division leadership when he asserted that they had rejected the 28th fundamental belief as presently worded.

John Fowler (GC) then rose to speak against the motion, arguing that if giving offense to others was the issue, then probably parts of all 27 fundamental beliefs gave offense to somebody. As an example, he cited the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sins, which offended many people. Therefore, he argued, let the document stand as it is.

An unidentified woman rose to register a point of order. What was the difference between “rescind,” and “reconsider?”

An unidentified man from the Trans-European Division then offered to make the motion to reconsider, since unlike Richli, he had voted with the majority.

The same woman then spoke again to ask for the implications of “rescind.”

Miranda referred the matter to Roscoe Howard for an explanation.

Roscoe Howard explained that “rescind” meant to nullify.

The same woman then asked if voting it down meant that it would be another five years?

Another unidentified man of about 60 with a South Asian Pacific appearance, raised a point of order. His heavy foreign accent made him difficult to understand, but the gist of his argument seemed to be that the rescission applied only to certain phrases rather than the whole document.

At this point, Miranda referred the matter to Wally Carson for clarification.

Carson recapitulated the sequence of events as he understood it: First, Richli had moved to reconsider, which meant the amendment to the fundamental belief would have been opened up  for further discussion. However, Richli was declared ineligible to make that motion, so he changed his motion to that of rescission. Rescission meant “killing” the initial vote.

With that clarification, Miranda declared that the business session had to be adjourned because they were out of time. 

Just before the start of the afternoon business session, Paulsen made an appeal to the person who made the motion (Richli) to rescind the motion, asking instead that they reconsider it, and refer it to committee. The committee would then reconsider it and present it to the body tomorrow morning.

At the beginning of the session, under the chairmanship of Gerry Karst, Claude Richli offered to withdraw his motion to rescind. Nobody objected, so it was voted upon and passed. The body then moved to refer it to committee. Karst then advised those who had concerns to put them in writing and take them to room 308 where the writing committee would be meeting between 4-6 p.m.

 

Wednesday morning, July 6

On Wednesday morning, July 6, the committee’s new version of the statement of belief was available to the press. There were two changes.

1. There had been an insertion of the phrase “his death” in the first sentence, making his death the instrument, rather than the cross:

            “By His death on the cross Jesus triumphed over the forces of evil.”

2. In the last sentence, the word “transformed” was substituted for “sanctified,” and tasks are transformed into a “spiritual experience.”

            “As we give ourselves in loving service to those around us and in witnessing to His salvation, His constant presence with us through the Spirit sanctifiestransforms every             moment and every task. task into a spiritual experience.”

However, the abbreviated business session of Wednesday July 6 did not take up the issue.

On Thursday morning, July 7, with Ted Wilson as chairman, another attempt was made to pass the revised 28th fundamental belief, item #207. 

But no sooner had the item been brought up for consideration than a point of order was raised by Julian [last name unknown] consisting of a motion to send a request to the bylaws committee to consider adding a rule restricting the total number of times a delegate may speak during a single session, because it seemed, he said, that some delegates have something to say about everything.

The vote wins.

That got the agenda back to item #207. Angel Rodriguez announced that the committee had met on Tuesday, with a wonderful spirit. W. Johnsson read the changes that were made.

Paul Peterson, who had opposed the measure previously, was the first to speak. This time he spoke in favor of it, since his objections had been addressed. “It is not my statement. It is our statement.”

Bradley Kemp rose to say that, while he was glad for the changes that had been made, the document still had some remaining problems. “…every moment…” and “…burden…” (rather than guilt) still remained problems. Because of these remaining issues, he thought it should be referred back to committee again.

William Johnsson responded by stating that “…every…” is qualified by the opening phrase.

John Testerman of GC/ADCOM came up to open a new can of worms. Stressing that there was no need to rush, and that the consequences of this action would be with us for a long time, he proposed that it was not Christ’s death on the cross per se that constituted the victory, but rather His subsequent resurrection. He therefore moved that the phrase “…and resurrection” be inserted into the first sentence.

A point of order was raised by an unidentified delegate that the motion needed to be voted up or down, but that such an amendment was not allowed. The chair agreed that editing from the floor was not permitted, but that such matters needed to be referred back to committee. Testerman agreed to change his motion to refer the matter back to committee.

Angel Rodriquez responded by saying that Testerman was trying to incorporate all theology into this one statement, whereas fundamental belief #9 had already made that point.

Testerman’s motion was voted upon and lost, putting item #207 back on the front burner again. Six people were at the mike waiting to speak, but by then, the clock had once again run out. A point of order was raised. The unidentified man complained that the proceedings were to fractured, and inquired if the matter couldn’t be settled in one session. Ted Wilson sympathized with the speaker’s sentiment, but said the program must proceed. However, since his father and others had recently had a birthday in the last few days, he asked all those who had had birthdays during the General Conference session to raise their hands. Ted Wilson then led the astonished delegates in singing “Happy Birthday” to them.    

The afternoon business session of July 7, began at 2:08 with Lowell Cooper as chairman. After Jere Patzer and Del Baker of the nominating committee had announced their nominees and the assembly had voted them in, chairman once again put the bedeviled 28th fundamental belief on the table for consideration. 

Cooper gave a brief recap of the morning, reminding the assembly that there were only about three minutes left in which to discuss the matter before a vote had to be taken to extend the discussion.

George Reid came to the mike to support the measure.

Dwayne Bullock (GC) announced that he had a problem with line 16 in that it failed to distinguish the journey from the destination.

But the 15 minute mark had been reached. A vote was taken that terminated further discussion and forced a vote on the question. The motion carried and at 2:38 the 28th fundamental belief had been voted in…again.

Note from John McLarty:

Readers have brought to our attention a couple of typos in previous reports. We welcome all such help from our readers. Our final report will include corrections of all errors that have come to our attention. Please email us regarding any errors you see or suspect.