Up or Down Vote? YES (re. the 2026 Declaration of Principles)
As the General Conference delegates prepare to vote on the 2026 Declaration of Principles, there is a preceding vote that will be of some consequence – a decision on a special rule that would make the adoption of the 2026 Declaration of Principles an up or down, excluding any amendments to its contents. The adoption of the rule will require that a 2/3 majority of delegates vote in favor of it.
In what follows, I will explain why this rule should be adopted and why it might even be unnecessary as we consider our bylaws and Robert’s Rules of Order.
What Difference Does a Change Make?
As we think about the possibility of amending the proposed 2026 Declaration of Principles, we must acknowledge the real effects in doing so. This document was not put together in a blender – it is coherently bound together as a whole, from the preamble to the last principle.
In the preamble, we state that the guiding frame is to report Advent Christian belief in such a way that it could be used a standard for ministers and churches in the denomination. That purpose compels us to weigh our beliefs, those which are essential and those that are secondary, in such a way as to determine where we must agree and where differences can abide.
This endeavor has revealed secondary differences among us that I did not realize were present; negotiation with these differences is reflected in the careful wording of the proposal (e.g. Principle XIII). Beyond my own personal considerations, the task force appointed to examine the 2026 DOP reckoned with the same. All that to say – the wording throughout has been chosen with great theological care.
Admittedly, even in theological agreement the exact wording may be more or less pleasing to one person or another. Some have shared such differences of preference with me, even while completely support the adoption of the 2026 DOP. As one who loves words, I can empathize with those who care about that level of detail. At the same time, I think in moments like these, involving so many opinions, we must be ready to compromise on our preferences. In fact, I have had to make such compromises along the way.
However, wordsmiths might not be the only ones who would seek an amendment. Those with genuine theological differences may wish to amend the proposal in ways that would fundamentally alter it. No doubt, non-trinitarians and others might wish to amend principles III and IV on the Doctrine of God and Christ to something quite different. In the final vote, can we really imagine this would be acceptable to those who are rightly resolute on those biblically orthodox doctrines? Likewise, we might imagine that some might desire that the language in principle IX would be exclusively annihilationist. Can we believe this would be acceptable to those who would wish to use the 2026 DOP as a standard of denominational membership and who would like to include those who believe in eternal torment? Again, the proposal would be fundamentally altered by such changes, changed in such a way that it would be unable to win adequate support.
To offer a visualization, making these sorts of changes at this stage is like adding a bit of red to a bucket of green paint – it changes the whole, leaving you with neither red nor green but some type of brown color. It introduces radical changes in a space not suited to considering the full ramifications. This cannot compare with the prescribed process which produced this proposal, having weighed all these things, and which gave us these past six months to consider the proposal.
ACGC Bylaws
Given how the proposed 2026 DOP might be significantly changed by such amendments, we must consider how this would square with the prescribed process for changing the Declaration of Principles as outlined in the ACGC bylaws. Article XIII states as follows (underlining my own):
Any action which would effect change of the Advent Christian Declaration of Principles must be submitted to the Executive Council by an Advent Christian church, conference, or region or member of the Executive Council. The Executive Council shall receive such proposals and shall appoint a Task Force to consider the Biblical basis of the proposal as well as its impact upon and implication for the polity and unity of the Advent Christian denomination. The Task Force shall work in consultation with the originator of the proposal and the Executive Director. They will bring their recommendation to the Executive Council for action no later than one year after the proposal is first brought to the Executive Council. If approved by a three-fourths vote of the Executive Council at the meeting at which the recommendation is presented, the proposed change shall then be brought to the delegates at the next regular General Conference session. A three-fourths vote by ballot of the delegates shall be required for ratification of the recommended change. Notice of the recommended change shall be stated in the call to meeting and communicated throughout the denomination six months, three months, and one month immediately preceding the meeting of the delegate body.
The prescribed process follows an order of: proponent -> Executive Council -> task force -> Executive Council -> delegate body (6/3/1 month notice). With this in mind, does welcoming amendments at the convention accord with the process adopted by the delegate body (2023) for changing the Declaration of Principles? I have already suggested how the proposal might be radically altered beyond recognition, thus circumventing the prescribed examination and due notice given to the members of the General Conference. We cannot know if some alteration that could be introduced by an amendment would have prompted some members to send delegates if they had only known. In keeping with congregationalist principles, the General Conference should offer fair opportunity for representation in the case of such important matters by giving due notice. Allowing for amendments in this case violates that principle.
Robert’s Rules of Order
As a quick search on Google will reveal, an organization’s bylaws take precedence over Robert’s Rules of Order. Even so, RR does speak to an instance such as this. In the 12th edition, §35:6 Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted (underlining mine) it states:
6. Are amendable, by the processes of primary and secondary amendment in any of the forms discussed in 12, as applicable to the particular case. Thus, a motion to Rescind can be amended, for example, by substituting for it a motion to amend what is proposed to be rescinded. But if a motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted is amended so that the change proposed by the amended motion then exceeds the scope of a previous notice that was given, the effect of the previous notice is destroyed and the motion can no longer be adopted by a majority vote (see Standard Characteristic 7). When these motions require previous notice (as may be the case with respect to a motion to rescind or amend a provision of the bylaws or a special rule of order), such a motion cannot be amended so as to make the proposed change greater than that for which notice has been given.
Notice how the rule here basically accords with our own bylaws. It is out of bounds to make significant changes to a proposal when due notice is required. Perhaps the meaning of “scope” and “greater” might be debated here? Theologically (this is not a matter of mere words), I believe it can be contended that the amendments that some might have in mind could be considered greater and beyond the scope of those that have been proposed.
Even so, this reference to RR is not necessary. It is only a buttress to the clear process our bylaws prescribe for such change: submission, examination, communication.
The Final Analysis
With all of this in mind, I think it is apparent that the vote on the 2026 Declaration of Principles should be an up or down vote. In fact, when considering our bylaws and Robert’s Rules (just a bonus), it seems questionable whether a special rule is even necessary. A decisive vote does not preclude discussion, but it does preclude unintended (or intended) filibustering of the proposal through a series of proposed amendments, which may all fail but which will nonetheless consume a great amount of time. This in turn could take away time from dealing with other important business, including the proposed changes to the bylaws which will allow for amendments. Thinking big picture, if business of this nature cannot be handled by the delegate body in a timely manner, it will discourage participation in future triennial conventions. Obviously, we gather for more than just business, but the business matters – a reality demonstrated by the high attendance this year.
So yes, the vote on the 2026 Declaration of Principles should be an up or down vote. If we need a special rule, it should be adopted. For the sake of unity, trivial differences should be set aside. For the sake of the integrity of the proposal, no changes should be made that would alter its convictions as has been communicated to the members of the General Conference leading up to this convention.
Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001, 2007, 2011, 2016 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.