Category: Questions

Conrad Vine and Ron Kelly both hold ministerial credentials that have not been revoked. Neither man is under a vote of censure or disfellowship from his local church. That is what Village’s Resolution means by calling them ministers in good standing, using the term similarly to how it is used in Robert’s Rules of Order: “Members in good standing are those whose rights as members of the assembly are not under suspension as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws” (83). If, as conference officials have maintained, the actions they took were not disciplinary, then both men remain in “good standing” to this day. In any case, they were in good and regular standing at the time the actions against them were taken.

There is another angle to this question if we take “good standing” as a broader statement about one’s orthodoxy or fitness to teach. There have been accusations levied against both men that would call into question their “good standing” in this sense. But one of the fundamental principles of due process is presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. Accused individuals should be given a hearing in which they can hear the evidence against them and present their defense. Unless and until this happens, they should not be treated as though the accusations against them were the final verdict.

The Resolution voted by the Village Church mentions the allegation that “the Executive Committee of the Michigan Conference has failed to follow biblical principles and the procedures of the Church Manual in acting on its grievances against Ron Kelly and Conrad Vine”. Some have asked what procedures they should have followed, especially given the widespread belief that there was no church discipline involved.

The key word here is grievances. The Church Manual gives instructions for how to deal with grievances against members.

Settlement of Grievances of the Church Against Members—At times Church organizations or institutions may have grievances against members. In such circumstances, Church administrators must, in Christian forbearance, keep in mind the biblical counsel for settling disputes among Christians and apply that counsel to the settlement of grievances of the Church against its members. The Church should, in preference to litigating matters in a secular court, make every reasonable effort in cooperation with the member to provide a process by which orderly settlement of the problem can be accomplished.

The Church recognizes the need of exercising great care to protect the highest spiritual interests of its members, to ensure fair treatment, and to safeguard the name of the Church. It cannot afford to deal lightly with such sins or permit personal considerations to affect its actions, and at the same time it must strive to reclaim and restore those who err.

“If the erring one repents and submits to Christ’s discipline, he is to be given another trial. And even if he does not repent, even if he stands outside the church, God’s servants still have a work to do for him. They are to seek earnestly to win him to repentance. And, however aggravated may have been his offense, if he yields to the striving of the Holy Spirit and, by confessing and forsaking his sin, gives evidence of repentance, he is to be forgiven and welcomed to the fold again. His brethren are to encourage him in the right way, treating him as they would wish to be treated were they in his place, considering themselves lest they also be tempted.”—7T 263.

A few items bear noting:

• The Manual says that administrators must apply “the biblical counsel for settling disputes among Christians”. This is significant given the stance of the conference president that Matthew 18 does not apply to public figures, and so is irrelevant to his treatment of Conrad Vine. There is certainly room for discussion on exactly when that particular passage applies. But the Manual admonishes church leaders not to let that ambiguity keep them from following Jesus’ counsel.
• Church leaders should “make every reasonable effort in cooperation with the member to provide a process by which orderly settlement of the problem can be accomplished.” This was not done in the case of Conrad Vine or of Ron Kelly.
• The goal of the actions taken by church administrators should be to “reclaim and restore those who err”, not to prematurely shun them as heretics.

The Michigan Conference leadership should have made “every reasonable effort” to resolve its grievance against Conrad Vine. An essential step in this process would have been sitting down with him and opening the Bible to show him his alleged errors. Instead, the Executive Committee, based on soundbites from a sermon, and without giving Vine a hearing, voted to ban him.

This is an important question. To answer it, we need to consider two meanings of the term discipline: one that’s commonly used in the English language, and a more technical sense defined in the Church Manual.

General English Usage

A common use of discipline is as a synonym for punishment. The American Heritage Dictionary, for example, includes “Punishment intended to correct or train” as the third sense in its entry on the word. If such punishment is administered by church leadership to correct church members, it is church discipline.

Note the language used in the letter the conference president issued when banning Conrad Vine:

Although we have been addressing this ongoing concern with him, his sentiments have evolved further in a public manner. As we continue to work through these issues, he will not be permitted access to the pulpits of our Michigan Conference churches.

The letter makes it clear that the ban was issued as a corrective punishment—i.e. discipline.

This is enough to legitimately use the term church discipline when discussing the conference leadership’s actions toward Conrad Vine. It also applies to the administration’s actions toward Ron Kelly and other pastors who have faced repercussions for voicing their concerns about the situation. These disciplinary actions can and should be evaluated through the lens of the Bible, which does not give us a narrower definition of the term—but which does provide principles that apply.

Church Manual  Usage

But when invoking the Church Manual to evaluate the procedures that were or were not followed, we should stay aware of the more precise ways the Manual uses the term discipline. Chapter 8 of the Manual, titled “Discipline”, contains 12 pages of guidelines for church discipline. The first half of the chapter covers general principles, which are discussed in greater detail under the answer to “What procedures did the conference fail to follow”?

While these general principles are part of the chapter on discipline, those who say the conference’s actions were not discipline are probably referring to the section titled “Process of Discipline”, which begins on page 68. This section opens by listing two specific disciplinary actions:

When grievous sins are involved, the church has two ways in which disciplinary measures must be taken:
1. By a vote of censure.
2. By a vote to remove from membership.

This list does not negate all the principles discussed earlier in the chapter. It also does not say that no other forms of discipline can exist, only that one of these must be implemented in cases of grievous sin.

But even if these are the only two possible forms of discipline, they are still relevant to the discussion. The Manual’s description of discipline by censure effectively describes what the conference president tried to pressure the Village Church into doing to Conrad Vine.

A vote of censure is for a stated period of from a minimum of one month to a maximum of 12 months. It terminates an erring member’s election or appointment to all offices and removes the privilege of election while it is in effect. Members under censure have no right to participate by voice or by vote in the affairs of the church or lead church activities, such as teaching a Sabbath School class. They are not deprived, however, of the privilege of sharing the blessings of Sabbath School, church worship, or communion. Membership may not be transferred during the period of censure. (69)

In meetings with Village elders, the conference president communicated to them that Vine needed to be removed from his church offices. He was already banned from speaking from the pulpit, and it had become clear that the conference intended the spirit of that ban to extend to any form of leading from the front. So despite not using the words “censure” or “discipline”, the conference president was telling the church to implement the main operative elements of censure: termination from church offices and forfeiture of the right to lead church activities. One of the few components omitted was the time limit designed to protect the member and keep the disciplinary emphasis on restoration rather than retribution. Avoiding the word “discipline” did not change what the president was trying to do. But the avoidance of precise terminology did make it easier for him to suggest disciplinary action that, if carried out according to his direction, would have lacked the safeguards built into the Church Manual to uphold the integrity of the process.

Yes, This Is Discipline

In summary, then, the principles of church discipline are relevant to this conversation. The common use of the word and the general principles of the Church Manual apply to what the conference officers actually did, and the specific definition of discipline by censure describes what the conference president attempted to have the church do. It is therefore valid to compare the conference’s actions to the procedures for church discipline described in the Bible and Church Manual.

The Church Manual affirms that speakers in Seventh-day Adventist churches must be approved in harmony with conference guidelines. This gives local conferences and pastors the authority to restrict access to the pulpit for individuals deemed not “worthy of confidence.” However, this authority must be exercised with extreme care, especially when the person in question is a member in good standing of a local church within the same conference.

While the Conference Executive Committee assigns pastors and provides guidance, the local church is a body of believers under Christ. The pastor and board – appointed to serve the spiritual needs of the local congregation – are accountable not only to the Conference Executive Committee but also to their local membership and to God. If a member who has wrong ideas is not dealt with according to the proper disciplinary procedures set forth in Matthew 18 and the church manual, but simply banned, the people of God are not given the warning of sin that is required in 1 Timothy 5:20. A ban from the Conference Executive Committee can short-circuit this God-ordained process if applied without due process and extreme care.