Church Administrators Did Not Talk About Re-structuring Conferences
by Monte Sahlin
By Adventist Today News Team, May 19, 2014
The meeting was called "unprecedented" in an official news release when church administrators gathered from throughout the North American Division (NAD) of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination last week (May 13-15). But, "No plans were either discussed or proposed for either the elimination or reduction in the number of specific conferences or unions," Dan Weber, the NAD communication director, told Adventist Today.
The group voted three recommendations after reviewing surveys of church members and denominational employees and a wide-ranging discussion of the current status of the Adventist faith in the United States, Canada and Bermuda.
(1) "Develop a branding strategy for Adventism tied to a clearer positive sense of our identity, empowering members to mingle with the secular community including opening our churches more hours to be available to local communities."
(2) Find "ways that" the denomination and its affiliated organizations "can streamline operations and eliminate duplications where unnecessary at every level."
(3) "Assign to a representative commission the challenge of exploring at least three scenarios for the redistribution of financial support …"
The commission "will look at every level of church structure to make sure that it is most effective in the 'missional' approach that is needed to reach the changing face of North America," an official news release after the meeting states. This group will present its recommendations to the NAD Year End Meeting in November.
Evidently the "unprecedented" aspect of the meeting is that it included conference treasurers and executive secretaries (vice presidents) as well as presidents. Leaders from the denomination's education and health institutions were also in the meeting. In fact, a Commission on Mission and Organization (COMO) conducted a similar study for the NAD in 1995-96 and the policy-making Year End Meeting has voted a number of changes in financial arrangements over several different occasions since the NAD became a functioning organizational unit in the mid-1980s. A number of these involved meetings or study groups that discussed topics similar to last week's event.
The meeting last week included significant expressions openness to change by the gathered leaders. "An overwhelming 95 percent of attendees said they would be willing to sacrifice their position if it would help further the mission of the Adventist Church," the official news release stated, although it is unclear how this figure was arrived at; by an anonymous poll or some other method.
"It is so wonderful that this body of North American Church leaders came to this extraordinary meeting with open hearts and open minds,” said Dan Jackson, president of the Adventist Church in North America. “ as This selfless spirit demonstrates a real desire to honestly examine our current organizational and missional delivery systems and how they need to be adapted to make the Adventist Church more relevant to our communities in the 21st century.”
Prior to the meeting a sample of 470 pastors, educators, administrators and retirees throughout North America were surveyed on a variety of topics. The response rate was 72 percent, which, according to survey analyst Dr. Karl Bailey, was “nearly unheard of” for participation in an anonymous survey. The results of the survey were evaluated and presented by Bailey and Dr. Duane McBride, both faculty members in the Behavioral Sciences Department at Andrews University. These survey results were used to identify topics for discussion at the meeting.
"No plans were either discussed or proposed for either the elimination or reduction in the number of specific conferences or unions," Dan Weber, the NAD communication director, told Adventist Today."
Why should we not be surprised if a group of North American church administrators would not touch the subject of downsizing which could mean the loss of their jobs and that of the constituency that voted them into their position. This is Political Science 101.
For the most part we operate a clergy controled church, while non-clergy take minimal positions. This is not much different from the Catholic church, where reform is nearly impossible. Change that streamlines structure and provides geater funding for the local church is not likely to occur as long as free money in tithe continues to flow.
It has been pointed out to me that I had not been clear when I suggested that NAD administrators would not touch the subject of downsizing when it would mean the loss of the jobs "of the constituency that voted them inter their positions." I plead guilty. The "constituency" to which I referred was not those who attend the various constituency sessions which include lay delegates. The "constituency" of most high ranking conference administrators are other conference clerical officials not laymen. Above the level of the local conference, laity have little, if any real political influence in elections, unless, of course, they are the 0.1% of the lay persons who can bring a lot of donated money to the table.
Branding strategy? Now that's an exercise in illusions and delusions! For such a strategy to be effective you first must have a substantive brand with positive market potential. We don't. The SDA Church in North America is shrinking as a portion of the population. It has become so irrelevant to the general public that it is in danger of disappearing. Until we find purpose in ministries that benefit our neighbors we will have no substance upon which to support a brand that is not so obviously transparent that it becomes self-mocking.
Streamlining operations might produce some benefits but I do not expect they will be more than minimal. So long as the tithe base is not collapsing there is no real incentive for change.
"Assign to a representiative commission…" That's not putting lipstick on a pig, that's painting the whole pig purple! One of the fundamental rules of bureaucracy is, if you want people to think you're trying to do something when what you're really trying to do is avoid doing anything, assign it to a committee. Another rule is, if assigning it to a committee isn't impressive enough to overcome disbelief, give the committee a more impressive name so it sounds like they've been empowered to really do something.
I was hopeful when the restructuring effort was first announced. Now it looks like I let my optimism run a few millimeters too far outside the matchbox. Yeah, I've seen this play before. I don't need to see the second act to see that Don Quixote is still riding a swaybacked plow horse and charging at windmills.
Next time a gathering of "My fellow SdA suits, ask not what your church can do for you, ask what you can do for your church" should be held in Chicago, IL.
The response would be 105% of those that would sacrifice their position for the mission.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnfkenn109213.html#ed5emCFmC0KyRlLj.99
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnfkenn109213.html#ed5emCFmC0KyRlLj.99
Blaming administration for the lukewarm condition of the church shows we are looking in the wrong places for solutions. Streamlining the administrative headcount and organizational structure, redirecting finances and bringing in the best trained management won't change the fact that it is lukewarmness that is our problem not organizational structure or lack of skills as such. The anti-establishment guerrilla tactics that liberals in the church use to attack the institution and its organizational structure won’t be the solution either and can only make matters worse. The church is lukewarm: laity, clergy and employee – and that is our problem. It is a spiritual problem. Just look at the rebellion and compromise within our ranks, courtesy of liberals of course, shows how even the NAD is being hijacked, held hostage and bowing down to pressure and the threat of congregationalism with the call by liberals to redirect tithes to local churches in an attempt to cripple and weaken the conferences or any other organizational structure they deem isn’t on their hit-list. The NAD has far more important things to worry about. Here are a few I can think of offhand:
1] Homosexuals holding leadership positions and being accepted as members.
2] Women ordination.
3] The practice of non-Adventists addressing congregations during Lent.
4] The preaching from our pulpits that homosexual behaviour is normal and not at all sinful.
5] Evolution theory proponents forcing their worldview on the church.
6] Elective Abortion services offered at Adventist hospitals.
7] Racism in the church in America.
8] Open denigration and disrespect of our duly elected GC President, Pastor Ted Wilson and the world church he and the GC represent.
Trevor,
It would be interesting to know whether you have listed these in order that you see their importance.
I am wondering where are these homosexuals in leadership positions? Generally when they are "outed" they are quietly or not so quietly removed from their leadership positions. And I assume you mean practicing homosexuals? I hope you would agree with me that homosexual desire like any other temptation is not sin. Yielding to temptation is sin. And would you not consider persons holding leadership positions who have illicit heterosexual relations to be just as big or bigger trouble for the church? So why single-out homosexuals for top place? When Jesus was tempted in all points as we are, did this include heterosexual and/or homosexual temptation? He was tempted but He did not yield.
Paul says that leaders need to be above reproach. But of course every leader I have known has had some sin in their lives. If you study Matthew 5 (a topic of SS lesson this quarter which I assume you endorse whole-heartedly since it was pulished by the GC) Jesus discusses hatred and enmity before He discusses sexual lust. He makes clear that both are evil.
Would you also place at or near the top of the sins of leaders Paul's advice that leaders in the church should not be contentious? I see that you have listed denigration of leaders as (8). Sometimes denigration of leaders is an admittedly inappropriate response to contentious actions of leaders. Those who have been exposed to contentious and arbitrary exercise of religious authority can especially fall prey to this temptation to denigrate. David's refusal to stretch-out his hand against the Lord's anointed was the exception rather than the rule. I do not find abuse of religious authority anywhere on your list. Maybe this is not a problem where you live?
Regarding women odination (2) you and I totally disagree. I think that in some parts of the world this will be a great blessing to the church. I do think the contention over women's ordination (a practice banned by bishops a couple hundred years after Christ) is harmful to the church.
I first attended a worship service conducted by a Catholic priest (3) in an Adventist school in 5th grade. Not having previously met any priests, I was surprised when he talked about the Good Samaritan, a parable of Jesus that among other things addresses religious prejudice (though he did not make that point). I think he was wiser in dealing with anti-Catholic prejudice among Adventists than we sometimes are.
I have never heard a sermon like (4) in any Adventist church. I have heard a sermon where Philip baptised a Eunuch which was the "third" gender at the time. So perhaps there is some hope in Christ for trans-gendered persons if not for homosexuals? And yes I have been to Adventist churches attended by practicing homosexuals – as well as alcoholics, adulterers, smokers, gossips and slanderers.
Who and where are evolutionists forcing their worldview on the church (5)? I think evolutionists forcing their views on society is a problem for everyone.
I agree with your comment regarding elective abortions in Adventist hospitals (6). I think elective abortion is as evil as slavery which our spiritual fore-fathers and mothers condemned. But having been close (in a friendship manner not a sexual manner) to young women who got abortions before and after Roe v Wade which legalized abortion in the US, I would not wish to return to the previous legal strictures.
Trevor,
Those things you listed have been allowed to become issues in the church because we have surrendered our responsibility to each be personally connected with God and for doing what He told each of us personally to do to others, particularly pastors. In far too many cases the church is a place where we fulfill a duty to attend each week for a period of time instead of a place where we enjoy meeting with God because we are part of His family.
It is when we become connected with the Holy Spirit and personally involved, when we become the church, that we begin looking past the problems to seeing how God has already given us redemptive solutions. Are you going to remain focused on the problem? Or on God's solutions so you can become a channel for ministering them to a dying world?
I like the idea of Adventist churches being more accessible to their communities. I like the thought that we might be "encouraged to mingle"—kind of necessary for Great Commissioning. I also like the idea of branding… I'm just curious about what it might mean.
Which of the various "Adventisms" that members debate about will be selected for presentation to people outside the churchyard? We don't have internal consensus on which aspects of our identity are core, which are secondary, and which are tangential. We don't even have internal consensus on which of our members are Real True Members and who should be pushed outside to be marketed to.
Which committees will be responsible for deciding all of the above on behalf of the rest of us, and how many non-administrators will participate in the deciding process? Or will this be another case where we'll see a distinction between the church as community of faith (which all of us can participate in) and the church as corporation (which only administrators can participate in)?
Brands are successful when they are supported by enough reality to give credibility to the perceptions surrounding them. Pick an attribute about the church we would like to see promoted to the public. How long do you think it would be until the reality in some number of churches contrasted enough to refute it? It is because of that risk that I do not believe an attempt at creating a church "brand" will be worthwhile, lasting or positive.
Whether we agree or not with Trevor's list, he has said one thing right, this is a spiritual issue. We are in a spritual battle, and the church is in a lukewarm state, falling asleep on the trenches of this spiritual battle. We need God's help more than ever.