More than any other issue, the Toronto GC Session will be remembered for its controversial vote on divorce and remarriage. This issue came to symbolize the growing tension between liberals and conservatives, and between the developed and the developing countries. How exactly did this surprising vote come about. Was it carefully orchestrated by certain delegates from the industrialized world or was it wholly spontaneous? How many people were actually present that Friday morning when the vote was taken (was it about 150 or some 500+)? What reasons motivated those who engineered and those who opposed the dramatic reversal? And what should the church do with this questionable Church Manual policy?

Eld. Garry Hodgkin, President of the South New Zealand Conference, and Dr. Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, Director of Public Campus Ministries for the Michigan Conference, were at the epicenter of this great controversy in Toronto. They represent two opposing views. Hodgkin, a delegate of the South Pacific Division, was the architect of the parliamentary process that led to the dramatic reversal. Pipim, a delegate from the Africa Indian-Ocean Division, was the key opponent of the motion to rescind.

The initial interview that we (GCO) did with Dr. Pipim is at this link.

The second interview in order of occurance was the one Dennis Hokama conducted for Adventist Today, a liberal publication based in La Sierra, California. Both Hodgkin and Pipim agree that although the parlimentary maneuver at Toronto was legal, it was not fair. But they disagree over how many people were actually present (150 or 500+) and over whether the dramatic event was carefully orchestrated or wholly spontaneous.

Finally, Pipim's response and suggestions on what should be done to correct this theologically questionable Church Manual policy follow in the remainder of this document below.

I appreciate Hodgkin's efforts at absolving himself from what is widely perceived as an unfair (though not illegal) parliamentary maneuver by a small group of delegates from the industrialized world to enshrine a theologically questionable position on divorce and remarriage into the Church Manual. As far as his role is concerned, he tried to show that he did not orchestrate what I describe as the "parliamentary coup," nor was he a party to the "coup plotters" from the first world.

Perceptive readers will, however, notice that, but for his disputing of my estimate of people present at that Friday morning business session, Hodgkin confirms the essence of what I said in my interview: A small group of people from the industrialized world employed the parliamentary process to reverse a prior decision by a majority of delegates, cut off all debate, and vote into church law what majority believe to be a biblically compromising position.

Areas of Agreement

Before highlighting areas in which we both agree, and before exploring the underlying theological issues that triggered our frustration with the parliamentary maneuvers, permit me to express my personal appreciation to Dennis Hokama, for allowing us to continue the discussion that was prematurely cut off in Toronto. I believe that readers of our two interviews have been enabled to appreciate a little more of our respective concerns and motivations. Thanks, Dennis, for giving us a fair hearing.

Your [Dennis Hokama] interview with Hodgkin was helpful in a number of ways. It enabled him to make his case that in his motion to rescind the referral action of Wednesday,

1. He sought nothing but fairness in the proceedings. This is indicated by the fact that a day before his motion, he expressed a wish to move to rescind the prior action. Though some of us did not hear it, he apparently gave notice of when he would like to make such a motion.
2. He himself did not expect his motion to pass, given the strong opposition to the document on the previous days.
3. He did not anticipate that all debates would be terminated after his motion passed; in fact he expressed his "surprise" and regret that it turned out that way.
4. He identified the "two sticking points" in the theological debate to be (a) the proposed document's "lack of an understanding of role differentiation," and (b) the proposal's assertion that "abandonment" (1 Cor 7:10-15) was a valid scriptural basis for divorce.

On the above points, Hodgkin and I can agree. I also agree with him that the authority that resides within a delegation can be a rather unpredictable thing, yet it is something we have chosen to respect. I expressed my convictions on this point in my interview with Dennis, when I mentioned that our own delegates have themselves to blame for not being there. For when a business session is called to order, those who are present are the ones who get to make the decisions. I did not fault the procedure's legality.

Despite our agreement of the above points, we seem to disagree on certain questions.

Orchestrated or Spontaneous?

We seem to have different views on whether or not the events leading to the dramatic reversal was orchestrated or wholly spontaneous. I have no reason to doubt Hodgkin's assertion that he did not attempt to enlist support from "any other division and had spoken to no more than 6-8 people in my [Hodgkin's] own [South Pacific] division." But this fact does not deny that there were obviously some delegates from other industrialized divisions who were willing to support any such move to reverse the prior action of Wednesday.

As Hodgkin himself "later heard," apart from his "[6-8] people in the South Pacific Division," others from the Trans European Division "anticipated what I [Hodgkin] was about to do and encouraged one of their number to go to the mike and second my motion." And as he also acknowledged, the delegate from the Trans European Division who moved to "cut off all debate" was himself "encouraged by delegates behind him, and perhaps, even the chair, to cut off debate all together." (Editors note: These were not Hodgkins observations, but my description and interpretation of what I thought actually happened.) I would leave delegates to decide on whether or not the event on Friday morning was orchestrated or spontaneous.

But this much can be said: The materials in Hodgkin's interview admit that in some respects what happened was planned by at least 6-8 people from the South Pacific Division. And there is nothing wrong with such advanced planning. Moreover, whether or not these 6-8 people actually interacted with others from other industrialized countries of North America and Europe is beside the point. They have every right to do so.

The issue is: Did other folks from the industrialized countries share the same ideological goal on the divorce and remarriage issue and did these individuals capitalize on Hodgkin's well-intentioned motion as the launching pad to invoke other (legitimate) parliamentary process to cut off discussion on a major theological issue on which a large number of delegates had earlier expressed their views by a vote of referral, and did this small group of individuals then proceed to impose a biblically compromising view upon the entire world? I believe that Hodgkin will answer affirmatively. And that was precisely my point.

Hodgkin's own motivation and role in the parliamentary process leading to the reversal of a decision made by an overwhelming majority of delegates may have been well-intentioned, even laudable. But I don't think he will deny the validity of the theological concerns raised by a majority of delegates on the previous days, nor will he defend the unfairness of what happened after his motion to rescind was voted. The serious theological concerns we had, and the manner in which the debate was cut off is the reason for the interviewer's [Dennis Hokama] observation that, "long after the dramatic Friday morning business session was over, delegates from the developing countries continued to express frustration and resentment over the 'slick' parliamentary tactics that had been used" by folks from the industrialized world.

How Many Were Present?

Hodgkin took issue with my 150 figure estimate for those present at that Friday morning session. He also explained that his reason or motivation for introducing his motion was his desire for "progress on our biblical understanding as well as the practical ministerial procedures of dealing with this [divorce and remarriage] issue."

Let me briefly respond. On the number of delegates present on that Friday morning, I myself acknowledged in my interview that the exact number of delegates can be disputed by some. I based my 150 figure on my own personal estimate. When I saw what was going on that Friday morning, I asked myself in surprise: "But how many people are actually here? And what right do they have to attempt overthrowing a decision by a majority of delegates?" This led me to do a quick approximation (it was not very difficult estimate, considering the handful of people who were present in the places earmarked for delegates from developing countries).

Apparently, I don't seem to stand alone in my rough estimate of 150. A friend of mine in the United States, who followed the GC session proceedings on the Internet audio feed, has also confirmed that number to me. After he read Hodgkin's 500-600 number in the latter's interview, my friend sent me this e-mail: "I plainly head, on the Internet audio feed, a delegate during the Friday business session state the number 150 and I plainly heard the chairman [of the afternoon session] confirm that it had appeared that 150 had been present. If an audio recording of the Friday business meeting exists, that would concretely prove it."

Apparently, another delegate and perhaps the Friday afternoon chairman are also quoted on the live Internet audio feed that the number of people present that morning was around the 150 figure. But regardless of the exact number estimated, very few, however, can question the fact that the total number of people present that morning was (i) a substantially smaller figure than those present on Tuesday and Wednesday, and that (ii) of the delegates present, an overwhelming majority of them were from the industrialized countries of North America, Europe, and Australia & New Zealand.

Therefore, rather than quibble over the 150 estimate I gave, I want to reiterate the point I stated in my interview: "Some may dispute the 150 number, but I believe my criticism would still be valid, even if 50% of the delegates took the decision to overturn the previous action." Let's therefore not waste time on this peripheral issue. Though I believe the number was around 150, this is not my main concern. It could have been 200, 300, even 500. That will not change my basic point that a very small number of people from the industrialized regions of the world church overturned a decision that a larger body of delegate made.

I applaud Hodgkin for making it clear that in his motion to rescind the referral action of Wednesday, he sought nothing but fairness in the proceedings. We are on the same page in our quest for fundamental fairness. But the fact that he had good intentions for his motion does not mean that the other proponents of the divorce and remarriage proposal shared the same sense of fairness. In fact, Hodgkin's good intentions did not prevent others from capitalizing on the absence of the delegates from the non-industrialized world to cut of all debates and vote "as is" the theologically problematic document.

Hermeneutical, Theological, Practical Issues

Let me now move away from the parliamentary issues to the more substantial concern, namely the theological issues. I am very curious to hear Hodgkin's position on the theological issues that many of us were raising regarding role distinctions in marriage and "abandonment" as grounds for divorce. He seemed to indicate that he would not have been bothered whichever way the session had decided on those two concerns. Does it mean that he deemed the theological issues irrelevant?

It seems quite unlikely. For he himself suggest that he was prompted by theological or hermeneutical concerns to make his parliamentary motion to rescind the previous day's referral to the Church Manual committee. In his very first response in the interview, he stated: "The issue of divorce and remarriage is one I have had to deal with continually throughout my ministry. . . . I felt it was crucial that we made progress on our biblical understanding as well as the practical ministerial procedures of dealing with this issue."

My two questions to Hodgkin are these: (1) Does the "progress on our biblical understanding" include a negation of divinely-appointed roles for male-female relationship in the home when God created them equal, neither superior to the other? (2) Does this "progress" of scriptural understanding include the belief that "abandonment of an unbeliever partner" constitute a new grounds for divorce?

If he answers Yes to the "two sticking points" above, how would he respond to the crucial problems I identified in my interview—namely, issues dealing with hermeneutics, logic, internal coherence, as well as application when we accept "abandonment of an unbeliever partner" as a scriptural grounds for divorce? But if he answers No, what kind of "progress on our biblical understanding" was he referring to? As Hodgkin may know, theological liberals and conservatives differ on their respective understanding of the phrase "progress on our biblical understanding." I am very curious on what he means by this—especially in the context of divorce and remarriage.

Hodgkin claims he introduced his motion because he was interested in dealing with "the practical ministerial procedures of dealing with this [divorce and remarriage] issue." How did his motion offer the much desired "practical ministerial procedures"? In what way are these practical procedures different from what was originally contained in the Church Manual prior to Toronto?

Finally, Hodgkin wrote: "I was extremely disappointed that the chairman of Wednesday morning's session chose to prevent delegates from making any further amendments." My question is: If the chairman had not prevented amendments to the Church Manual proposal, what "further amendments" would he have offered?

The Dilemma We Face

Hodgkin may not have intended the outcome of his motion—to rescind a previous majority decision—to have ended the way it did. Unfortunately, it did. The consequence is that today we have enshrined in our Church Manual a theological position that is arguably unbiblical, that goes contrary to the Spirit of Prophecy, that goes against the overwhelming consensus of the larger body of church delegates who referred it back to the Church Manual committee, but which a few people from a particular segment of the world church decided to vote into church policy.

The dilemma for some of us is this: It forces us to choose between the Bible and the Church Manual, between our conscience and a questionable policy, between the Spirit of Prophecy and the determined wishes of a small group of individuals.

In my opinion this Toronto vote by a small group of determined individuals cannot be seen as the God-ordained vote on this issue. Characteristic of all coup d'etats, the Friday morning vote overthrew the decision of referral agreed upon by delegates from all parts of the world field. This unfortunate action was carried out by a small group of individuals who determined to have their own way by disregarding the expressed wishes of the general body. Ellen White wrote:

But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body" (9T 260).

Mrs. White also indicated that GC session decisions should not be surrendered to a "small group of men." She considered it an "error" to accord "the full measure of authority and influence" to the judgment by a small and/or unrepresentative group of delegates. Sister White wrote:

God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work. (9T 261).

Those who at Toronto voted the biblically questionable proposal into the Church Manual were not composed of "brethren from all parts of the field." They cannot legitimately claim to be "representative from all parts of the earth. Instead, they were "a small group of men" from an ideological segment of the industrialized world. Their wishes, judgment, and theological position were "contrary to the decision of the general body."

In the light of these facts, the Friday morning vote at Toronto cannot be accorded the "full measure of authority and influence that God has invested in His church." The decision by this "small group of men" cannot legitimately represent that of "the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work." Therefore those who attempt to implement it can only do so at the peril of the "prosperity and advancement" of God's work (9T 260-261).

Proponents can flatter themselves into believing that they now have a policy on divorce and remarriage that is "compassionate" and "redemptive." But the truth is that this questionable policy will not solve the divorce problem. It will rather worsen it. More importantly, the policy will compromise the message and witness of the Seventh-day Adventist church as a counter-voice in today's world.

What Must We Do?

The SDA church has a judicious procedure to address this kind of problem. Rather than unilaterally defying or rebelling against a GC session, we must direct our grievances to the appropriate quarters of the church—from the conference level, through the union and division levels, to the GC level. It is incumbent upon the church to bring this issue up again at the next GC. This action ought to be taken to prevent this type of politics--what I call a "parliamentary coup d'etat." In the mean time, to avoid forcing conscientious believers from choosing between the Bible and the Church Manual, we can call for an immediate freeze or moratorium in the implementation of this questionable policy from Toronto.

I want to believe that church leaders who cherish the same sense of fairness projected by Eld. Hodgkin will now set a process in motion for the world church to reconsider this controversial vote at the next GC session at St. Louis. Will Hodgkin second my motion? And will he counsel with some of his 6-8 colleagues to do the right thing?

To read the original GCO interview with Dr. Pipim, click here.