BY BARRY OLIVER

ANY YEARS AGO I made an intentional decision to follow Christ as my Savior and Lord. That decision was celebrated in December 1964 in my home church at Goulburn, Australia. With a number of my friends I was baptized by Pastor Rex Cobbin.

I have often thought about what happened on that day. I remember clearly my mother commenting a few days after my baptism that there seemed to be something different about me. No doubt my mom was noticing something about my behavior, and I am thankful that my baptism and decision for Christ did make an impact on my behavior. I hope that will always be the case. Unfortunately, however, my behavior is not always as consistent as it should be, even as an adult--especially as an adult.

But even though my behavior is not always ideal, it is important for me to remember that when I decided for Christ and baptism, I chose to give Him my allegiance. That decision means that I have chosen to actively accept His gracious provision of salvation and live to bring honor and glory to Him. I cannot choose to act subversively or in any way to bring dishonor to Him and His kingdom. Even when I fail Him, I know that I can come to Him and seek His forgiveness. I know that He hears me and forgives me. I can have the assurance of His salvation because I have chosen to accept His gracious provision. I have given and continue to give Him my allegiance. In consequence, I believe that in the judgment the question asked of Barry Oliver will be a question of allegiance. There is no more important question when it comes to my personal response to my God.

A Decision of Authority
When I was baptized in December 1964, another decision transpired that went along with the first decision. That decision also has to do with allegiance. I chose to give my allegiance to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I based that choice on my conviction that there is a New Testament imperative that the people of God should enjoy the benefits of the community of faith--the church--and that they should not forsake "the assembling of ourselves together" (Heb. 10:25). I also based it on my belief that the Seventh-day Adventist Church holds a divine commission to herald to the world the message of the three angels of Revelation 14, and to announce the soon return of Jesus Christ. My choice was a choice for loyalty to this church.

I continue to experience this sense of loyalty to my God. In fact, as the years pass I find that it is growing stronger. As I become more aware of the consistency of my God and His gracious initiative in offering salvation to us, I find my decision more certain and my allegiance unswerving.

My experience of loyalty to my church is a little different. The church is a spiritual organization. Its constituent parts are vitally linked together as the body of Christ. But at the same time it is a human organization. It comprises people just like me. That means that it is going to be subject to all of the foibles of human nature that I am subject to. It will not always act with the same consistency with which God acts. Indeed, looking down to our day, John described the church--my church--as "neither cold nor hot," "wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked" (Rev. 3:15-17, NIV). But Christ still loves the church. He says to it, "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me" (Rev. 3:20, NIV).

If Christ still loves the church, can I do less? Despite its humanness, my decision to be a member of this church means that I will work for this church, pray for this church, support this church, and even accept the authority of this church.

Accepting the authority of the church is something that is not easy for us--especially at this time, when there is almost universal antipathy toward accepting authority of any kind. The call for freedom has communicated an antiauthoritarian stance that has become the hallmark of contemporary generations. But the church must be granted a degree of authority if it is to exist as the community of God's people in the world.¹ To take away appropriate authority is to invite anarchy and the demise of the church itself. Christ clearly intended that his church should have authority to act in the world. To give my allegiance to Christ and become a member of the church is to accept that authority.

But that authority is not exercised in an absolute sense in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. For example, some Christian denominations have a doctrine of infallibility or apostolic succession and, thus, a strongly defined line of authority. That is not the case in my church. The Seventh-day Adventist Church recognizes a pattern of authority that understands Christ to be head of the church and accepts His authority in the church through His revealed Word. In matters of church governance Seventh-day Adventists understand that authority arises from a legitamizing process of representation, and that the key to the success of this process is a broad-based participation. Through consensus we grant authority to our leaders and accept the voice of the church when that voice arises from the representative process that is achieved at every level of church organization, but which is best demonstrated at a General Conference session.

A Consensus of Authority
Seventh-day Adventists follow this process on a strong biblical precedent. It is especially illustrated in the New Testament through the events surrounding the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. That council held a position of considerable authority for the early believers.

Reading through Acts 15, we notice that the council sent specific communication to the churches. Following the council, Paul and Timothy traveled through the region of Derbe and Lystra, and "they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey" (Acts 16:4, NIV). In consequence, "the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers" (verse 5).² Notice that the churches willingly accepted the decision of the council on a doctrinal matter when a representative process was followed.

It is clear that the Jerusalem Council helps us to understand the appropriate relative authority of the local church as compared with the universal church. Local churches did have authority to discipline individuals who stepped outside the ethical and doctrinal norms of the community (Matt. 18:17). However, Acts 15 tells us that they were not free to transgress corporately the lines of demarcation that defined the doctrinal and ethical standards of the wider church community. They were not free, for example, to continue to insist on circumcision once the more representative body had made a decision on the matter. With regard to the line of authority from the wider church community to the local church as described in Acts 15, it is possible to summarize as follows:

1. The authority of the wider church reaches further than that of the particular local church in both geographical and temporal terms. The decision of the council was to impact the church at that time and in the centuries that followed.

2. The wider church has the final word on doctrine and practice in the church at large.

3. The decision of the council was made with reference to Scripture. The authority of the church is never absolute, but is based on the authoritative Word of God.

4. The delegated leaders exercised the right of the church to interpret Scripture, and made the final decision in this doctrinal dispute. The role of the wider church was to appoint representatives to the council, then support and accept the decisions made.

5. Decisions that are made with reference to doctrine have practical outcomes. Faith and practice cannot be separated.

6. By implication, the authority of the local church is greatly enhanced when it turns to the wider church when matters of doctrinal concern are to be discussed.

Clearly Acts 15 is instructive for the Seventh-day Adventist Church as it seeks to maintain its commitment to a global mission and its corollary, a global organizational structure. While it is true that the events of Acts 15 were confined to a relatively small geographical area, and while it is also true that when writing to the church at Corinth, Paul as an apostle took a somewhat broader perspective on food offered to idols, the passage does give us some indication as to how proper authority in the church should be granted and respected. My allegiance to this church grows when I understand that it is endeavoring to apply the principles illustrated in this passage of Scripture to the complex organizational and administrative demands of coordinating the worldwide mission of the church.

What Allegiance to Christ and to the Church Means to Me
Many years ago I made an intentional decision to accept Christ as my Savior and become a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. That decision had to do with allegiance: allegiance to God in the first place, but also allegiance to my church.

Allegiance to Christ means that I delight every day in the glory of His grace despite my humanness. It is knowing that it is precisely because of my human condition that His grace is so glorious. It means that I intentionally choose to live for Him, to speak for Him, to follow Him, to obey Him, and to honor Him as Lord and Savior.

Allegiance to my church means that when I disagree with the church, I have the freedom to make my point of view known. It means that when I make my point of view known, I will do it in a way that reflects my fundamental allegiance to my church and will not bring harm to my church or to the members of the church. It means that if the church at large does not agree with my point of view, I do not maintain my point of view to bring discredit to the church. It means that I may have to put my point of view aside for the time being, or maybe forever. If in my conscience I cannot do that, and if my church does not agree with my point of view, I do not have the ethical right to disseminate my point of view, causing disharmony and dissension. To cause disharmony and dissension while insisting on my point of view after the church, through its legitimate representative process, has decided differently is an act that calls into serious question my allegiance to the church.

As human as it is, the church still needs my allegiance and my loyalty.

_________________________
¹ In an article published in 1995 Robert S. Folkenberg, then president of the General Conference, discussed four aspects of the nature of church authority: 1. "God has given authority to His church." 2. "Authority in the church is always corporate in nature." 3. "The broader the participation, the greater the authority." 4. "Authority must be joined with responsibility." ("The Church-Authority and Responsibility," Adventist Review, May 1995, pp. 18, 19.
² Eminent Seventh-day Adventist ecclesiologist Raoul Dederen has said of this passage: "Here we have a clear example of a major assembly that spoke not merely in an advisory capacity, but with binding authority. Major assemblies, which address matters that pertain to the churches in general, and concern the preservation of unity, therefore exercising authority of a broader and more extended scale, are unquestionably warranted by Scripture" ("The Church: Authority and Unity," Ministry, May 1995, insert).

_________________________
Barry Oliver, Ph.D., is general secretary of the South Pacific Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.