PROPOSAL FOR ADVENTIST ADVOCACY SERVICE

Biblical motivation:
In Bible times the concept of  "cities of refuge" was an important concept.  
Numbers 35 details the rules to follow that ensure those accused of murder a 
fair trial, and refuge against avengers who are motivated by revenge or 
hatred.  A closely related concept was the practice of going into the 
sanctuary and taking hold of the horns of the altar and requesting mercy 
(1 Kings 1:50-52, 2:28-30).  We also are aware of several cases in the Bible 
where advocacy was practiced.   In the story of Saul and Jonathan, the people 
rescued Jonathan from the hands of Saul when he wrongly decreed death against 
his son.  Later, Jonathan tried to advocate for David in front of his father, 
with little success, and received a javelin throw for his trouble.

More importantly, within the sanctuary service, from whence Adventism derives 
its central doctrine, we see the framework for justice and mercy.   The 
lessons we learn should not be limited to leading the scapegoat into the 
wilderness.   We should have a process equivalent to taking hold of the horns 
on the altar and begging for mercy.   The request for mercy should then 
trigger a fair process of investigative judgment, also a central point of the 
sanctuary doctrine.  Finally, we should place a greater emphasis on 
bringing the themes of atonement and reconcilation from the ancient sanctuary 
into modern life.

These themes are echoed in the New Testament; the concept of the Holy Spirit 
as Advocate (paraclete) is an important theme, also that of Christ as a 
Mediator and Judge.  

Personal motivation: 
The conference leadership has stated publicly, and rightfully so, that its 
greatest assets are its employees.  Yet year after year we see many employees 
leaving denominational employment.   These are people in whom the church has 
invested years of seminary education, continuing education, and moving costs 
in addition to salary.  They are not easily replaced and their departure 
often brings alienation not only of the employee and his family, but of many 
others in the congregation that is affected.

In the story of Jonathan trying to advocate for David, we see how difficult it
can be for someone within the organization to try to advocate for someone who 
has been accused of being against the organization.  Often the leaders may 
attack the messenger who delivers good words about an accused employee, to say
nothing about ignoring the message.  An accused employee may find himself with
nobody in the conference office to hear his case, in fact, if he states his 
case that in itself may be considered insubordination.  Other denominational 
employees may also find it difficult to defend the accused employee as well, 
given their duty to uphold the authority of the conference leadership.  We 
see, then the need for an independent advocate to take the side of accused 
denominational employees and present their case.   The relationship of this 
advocate to the conference leadership needs to be defined in advance so that 
this is not seen as an adversarial relationship.

Proposed process:
When a denominational employee stands accused of something which could lead 
to the loss of his job, he would be able to request the services of an 
advocate.  It would then become the responsibility of this advocate to 
represent the employee and accompany the employee to all committee meetings 
and discussions of the executive that are discussing his fate.   The advocate 
is not intended to be an impartial fact-finder, although he should attempt to 
communicate with the leadership to hear their side of the story.
It is the advocate's responsibility to take the side of the accused employee 
and represent that side as eloquently as he can.  Throughout the process, the 
employee shall enjoy the presumption of innocence.

In discussions with the leadership, the advocate will probably find that some 
facts are in dispute between the leadership and the accused employee.  It is 
the advocate's job to articulate these differences as clearly as possible, 
and then an independent fact-finder can be called in to determine which 
version of the facts is most likely right.  The fact-finder should also rule 
if he finds that a violation of church policy has occurred such that the 
accused employee's job should be lost, or if a transfer to elsewhere is 
warranted.  He would then make his recommendations known to the appropriate 
committees and let them take the final action.

Who is the advocate?
The advocate should be someone from within the conference but not within 
denominational employ.  It should be someone who is not from the church or 
school of the accused employee.  At the beginning of the process this will 
have to be a volunteer-only basis but it is hoped that eventually a set of 
professional advocates can be developed and paid by an independent 
foundation.  Alternatively the church might choose to pay the expenses of the 
volunteers from the reduced training and employee maintenance costs.

Who is the fact-finder?
Since the fact-finder will have to have a better acquaintance with church 
policy, fact-finders should be denominational employees, but from conferences 
and unions outside the management that is at issue with the employee.  

Ombudsman:
A member of the church leader should be appointed as ombudsman, perhaps at 
the division level.  It would be the job of the ombudsman to process all 
requests for advocates, and either serve as the fact-finder himself, or to 
arrange for another person to do it.   In short, the ombudsman would be the 
first person for employees to contact to initiate the process.   The 
ombudsman may also serve as mediator in irreconcilable disputes within the 
organization where neither's employment is in jeopardy.

Ideally it would be nice to duplicate the functions of these people at the 
local church level  in matters of church discipline.