Presented to the
Commission on Ministries, Services and Structures
by
Lowell C Cooper

Introduction

Change is constant and inevitable.  On a global scale the ways that people and organizations conduct their activities and define their relationships varies with the passage of time.  Every organization and individual is affected in some way or another by changes beyond their control.  Similarly, the environment in which the Church lives out its mission is dynamic, not static.  The forces of change are ever at work.  One of the tasks of leadership is to anticipate, monitor and respond to change while ensuring that the Church is anchored to those realities that do not change.  The response to change may be proactive or retroactive.  The greatest risk lies in ignoring or not recognizing that change is occurring.

Seventh-day Adventists often express pride in their church organization and structure.  The features of denominational organization were adopted over the course of several decades and represented a culmination of careful, prayerful study combined with the pragmatism of experience.  The macro developments in organizational structure occurred in the first 50-60 years of denominational life.  This set the template for organizational patterns and relationships—a template that has not changed significantly during the past 100 years.

It is not unnatural for persons to ask questions about the reasons for and necessity of present organizational structure.  Some among those who have studied denominational history suggest it is once again time for the Church to review its structural features in light of significantly changed circumstances since the early 1900s.  At the same time many Seventh-day Adventist members hold to the view that present denominational structure has been divinely inspired and therefore is appropriate and adequate for all time.  Such persons may regard any large-scale review of denominational structures to be unwarranted and ill-advised.  Thus it is important for Church leadership to carefully identify and articulate how and why a review of organizational structures and procedures is part of denominational stewardship.

This presentation identifies some basic assumptions about Seventh-day Adventist Church organization and lists several reasons why the Church should now be engaged in a review of ministries, services and structures.

Basic assumptions

1. The Church’s core values of a worldwide mission and worldwide unity call for a global identity and structure.  The Seventh-day Adventist Church must be, and will continue to be, one world Church with strong linkages among all its parts—from local Church to General Conference.  Any structural revision must preserve a sense of ownership and responsibility for mission at the local level along with a sense of identity as a worldwide family engaged in fulfilling the Gospel Commission on a global scale.  The connectedness of the Seventh-day Adventist Church must remain theological, structural, and experiential.

2. Neither designs in corporate business nor government provide an adequate model for Seventh-day Adventist Church structure.  The precise arrangement of denominational structure will have to be planned and adopted by the membership.  Some elements of denominational organization may be analogous to certain features of business or government.  However, the fundamental characteristic of Church organization is the preservation of a dynamic and voluntary relationship of mutual service and support for the growth of God’s kingdom.  The New Testament (1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Timothy, etc.) does contain some specific guidance on the organization of a local Church but has relatively less guidance on how a multitude of  local churches express their collective identity and collaboration.  Bible imagery (including such expressions as shepherd and sheep, body of Christ, vine and branches, household of faith, family of God, building, bride of Christ) provides insight regarding relationships and attitudes that should characterize the Church but these do not provide definitive guidance on the shape of a global structure.

3. The local church and the world church (i.e General Conference Session) are indispensable elements of denominational structure.  Other expressions of structure such as local missions/conferences, union missions/conferences, institutions, and the General Conference office with its divisions must be rationalized and established or modified in terms of their efficiency and effectiveness in facilitating mission and strengthening unity.

4. The range of environments (geopolitical, cultural, economic, religious) to which the Seventh-day Adventist Church must relate will require some flexibility in organizational structure.  A rigid organizational template may not always be the best way to facilitate mission and unity.  Structural arrangements considered essential in some areas may not be appropriate in all areas of the world.  The cohesiveness of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not due to structure alone.  In fact, denominational structure must be seen as the servant of unity rather than its master.

The connectedness of the Seventh-day Adventist family worldwide arises from several elements of denominational life.  These include among other things a shared commitment to a Bible-based theology and understanding of mission; theological education and credentialing/ordination of ministers predicated on a shared faith; a Church Manual both prescriptive and descriptive of local Church life and operations; a more-or-less standard pattern for establishing and operating denominational entities; and a system of discipline for those members or organizational entities that fall outside of established boundaries.

5. Revising/adjusting structure does not automatically mean that increased resources will be available for organizational mission.  Church members everywhere deserve a clear understanding as to how denominational structure encourages, facilitates and sustains mission and unity.  Revising denominational structure must result in greater effectiveness and/or increased efficiency.  This does not happen automatically.  Deliberate strategies will have to be employed to ensure that operational savings and efficiencies, if any, that flow from organizational adjustments are dedicated to mission accomplishment and strengthen the bond of unity in the Church.

Reasons for considering structural adjustments

1. Organizational structure is necessary.  It is also necessary to assess periodically the role and function of structures in a rapidly changing operational environment.  The rationale for a specific organizational structure must be relevant to circumstances, situations and current possibilities.  Structures and vehicles used to accomplish certain purposes can become outdated.  Are the multiple layers of denominational structure necessary today? 

Some have voiced the perception that the multiple layers of denominational organization contribute to decreased efficiency in the use of resources and diminished effectiveness in communication and collective action.  These perceptions, unless addressed, will increasingly impede the functions of present structures.  Members around the world deserve explanations that reveal organizational transparency and a clear statement regarding how denominational structure fulfills our theological understanding of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as well as how the structure facilitates mission and unity.

Over the last two or three decades there has been a rapid and widespread development of independent supporting ministries.  In many ways these have been an enormous blessing to the life and work of the Church.  However, it is also true that a considerable portion of church member support has been channeled through independent supporting ministries as a consequence of uncertainty regarding the effectiveness or efficiency of denominational structure to get the job done.  It is true of non-profit organizations in general that their funding tends to favor project funding rather than the building of a great organization.  However, it must be said that restricted giving (or project giving) misses a fundamental truth: the greatest impact on society requires first and foremost a great organization, not just a great program.

In many cases independent supporting ministries report significant programmatic accomplishments that may even overshadow what seem to be the accomplishments of the regular denominational structure.  What is not always so clear is that many independent supporting ministries also rely heavily on church infrastructure rather than creating such infrastructure for their own needs.

Every organization has operational costs for education, leadership training, establishing a knowledge base, and creating conditions, experiences and events  that keep an organization together.  Organizational structure is necessary—and it must be portrayed as complementing mission rather than competing with it.

The tendency for infrastructure to proliferate is common to all types of organizations.  It is the responsibility of leadership both to communicate the necessity of infrastructure and to exercise the vigilance that holds infrastructure accountable to the accomplishment of mission.

2. Technological advances and organizational growth create opportunities and needs for reconfiguration of organizational structures and procedures.  The template for current denominational organization (though slightly modified through the years) grew out of the General Conference Session of 1901.  Since then the Church has experienced dramatic growth in its membership and global presence.  The Church has a worldwide presence and momentum that it did not enjoy in 1901.  Marked advancement in travel and communication possibilities in recent decades creates new opportunities for organizational connectedness.  The Church must continually consider ways that denominational structure might more fully benefit from technology while extending its presence throughout the world?  (For a stimulating and provocative introduction to how recent technological advances have impacted the world and the way organizations conduct business see The World is Flat:  A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century by Thomas L Friedman, © Thomas Friedman 2005.)

3. Maturity of national membership and regional structures permits and requires revision of roles and relationships within organizational structure.  The manner in which denominational structures rely on General Conference services changes over time as local capacity develops.  The presence of a stable, trained and experienced Church membership base has increased the capacity for certain church programming functions to be addressed within the various cultures and regions of the world.  At the same time certain General Conference-based ministries and services are essential due to the international scope of activity or to the global dimensions of the membership or employees involved.  The role of the General Conference (and its divisions) in fostering unity and mission-focus is accomplished both through the administrative roles of General Conference officers and the ministries and services it provides to the world field.

 While the General Conference is indispensable (see Basic Assumptions #3 above) it must also be recognized that the degree of reliance on the General Conference office for ministries and services varies widely around the world.  It is proper that the functions of the General Conference office be reviewed and revised from time to time in keeping with the changing needs of the field.  When and if this is done it should be clear that revising a function of the General Conference does not reconfigure the role of the General Conference in session, or of the General Conference office and its divisions, as expressions of the global reality of the Church.

4. Church structure needs a degree of flexibility in view of widely divergent circumstances.  Further, a rationale is needed for developing new units of denominational structure or of right-sizing existing structures.  There is wide diversity in the size and operation of functionally equivalent denominational units.  The membership of some local conferences exceeds the membership of some divisions.  Membership of some local churches exceeds that of some local conferences/missions.  How should these differences be addressed when defining an entity’s role in the world Church?  In light of the current size diversity among entities is there a better way of composing the regional and international dialog/decision-making bodies of denominational life?

To illustrate:  Membership on various executive committees is largely determined by the classification of an entity.  Since entities significantly vary in size the representation and/or participation of the membership is sometimes viewed as being disproportional.  Although there has not been an expectation or a traditional practice that participation in Church life be determined by precise mathematical formulas it is important to periodically note, and if necessary revise, the patterns of membership representation and participation in global decision-making.

• Membership in the 500+ local missions and conferences ranges from 180 to 168,000.  Fifty-six local conferences or missions have membership of less than 2,000.  Should the representation formula be the same for a conference of 2,000 members as for a conference of 168,000 members?
• Sixty-one entities are described as “attached fields” and have different ways of being represented.
• Fourteen unions have membership less than 10,000 while seven unions have membership of over 400,000.

5. It is vitally important to preserve and strengthen the ability of the local church and the world church to remain in dynamic and effective communication.  The local church pastor is viewed as a key leadership link between denominational structure and church members.  Yet there is relatively limited “systems-based, two-way” communication between the world church (i.e. General Conference) and the local church pastor.  The prevalence of ubiquitous instantaneous communication systems is not utilized to the fullest advantage by the Church.  Some might claim that technology offers, even to a local church, such a wide array of resource possibilities that the need for historic denominational structure, as a resource system, is becoming optional.  The Church must address the question of how the local congregation and the world church remain in dynamic communication, obtain feedback and provide timely response.   Most pastors have limited direct engagement with the decision-making bodies of the Church.

To illustrate:  Five local churches generate just over one percent of world tithe.  Among the five senior pastors of these churches:

• One is on the local conference executive committee
• One is on the union executive committee
• No one is on the division executive committee
• No one is on the General Conference executive committee
• No one was a delegate to the GC Session 2005

This illustration is not cited as an argument that these pastors should be on all the various layers of executive committees.  But it does point out that relatively few local churches can exert significant impact on the whole denomination.  The opportunities and methodologies available to an average-size congregation for quite independent participation in worldwide mission are many.  This reality should be celebrated rather than mourned.  But its existence also underscores the importance of a denominational structure that effectively engages the local Church and the world Church in dialog regarding mission.  Such issues might be viewed as operational and procedural questions rather than structural questions.  But an operational/procedural question cannot be resolved without examining the role and effectiveness of the structures involved.

Some possible questions in assessing the need for, and nature of, organizational  change

1. How can structure more effectively facilitate both local flavor/initiative and global unity?

2. How many levels/layers of constituency-based structure are necessary?

3. What criteria should be used in establishing/maintaining mezzanine (between the local church and General Conference/divisions) units of organization

4. In the interest of mission and unity what roles of the General Conference and/or its divisions might be modified or enhanced?

5. Since consideration of change in organizational structure can be such a sensitive and draining experience (in terms of human and physical resources) how should a global discussion and decision-making process of organizational restructuring be carried out so as to ensure the highest possible degree of success?

-30-