Rationale for the Appointment of the Commission on Ministries, Services, and Structures

Jan Paulsen

April 11, 2006

What is it that brings us to the point where Annual Council has yet again set up a commission to look at how we are governed and how we function organizationally? Does it signal a crisis, or is it normal in a community such as ours.

The globality of our church; the rapid growth we experience in some areas with accompanying needs in order to sustain the church, on the one hand, while at the same time the sluggish or no growth in areas which historically have been resource providers for the church, with accompanying changed expectations by members, undoubtedly necessitate a rethink such as that for which this commission was set up. Furthermore, we are impacted by a variety of government enforced regulations and by the predominance of religions other than Christianity in some parts of the world, which force the church to critically and analytically re-examine the organizational and operational structures we have, or are prepared to have, in such circumstances. As we do that it would also be well for us to examine the directions in which our various ministries and services flow. It seems to me important that we acknowledge such re-examination to be normal and as something that will need to be done from time to time also in the future. Therefore, whatever comes out of the work of this commission, it would probably be good to see it as a chapter in the book of our church – a book which will not be completed until the journey is over, for the church is a living organism and life is dynamic. Our recommendations must reflect our best judgment for the time we see immediately before us. More than that can not be asked of us.

What is different about this commission as compared to the most recent past ones is that while we have had occasion to consider, although recommendations were not finalized, our various ministries and services (what we traditionally call ‘departments’), and they have been rolled into the work of this commission, we are now also including a review of organizational structures.

The overarching question which hovers over our work as a commission is this: The organizational structures we have were set up over one hundred years ago when our world membership was at 75,000 and we were scattered thinly internationally, and we were vastly dependent on resources and ideas coming from the western developed world. Is this adequate for us to go into the 21st century with 25 million or 50 million members? (This is mainly a question for organizational structures, but it will affect ministries and departments also as they flow from the organizational arrangements we have)

The big concerns which will drive our considerations as a commission are, I believe, quite simple: (1) the global unity of the church, (2) the global mission entrusted to us, and (3) the best use of resources to make these possible. These concerns are no different from those that led our pioneers one hundred years ago to develop the structures we currently have and which have served us well for a century.

Let me list and comment in some more details on the elements which constitute the rationale for our work and which must be enhanced by the recommendations we may arrive at:

1. Unity
   The Seventh-day Adventist church is uniquely organized around the world. The organization we have reflects our conviction that we are ONE global community – inter-linked, reciprocally dependent on each other and never independent of each other. We hold that this was and is God’s design for us. We stay in careful consultation with each other when we define our identity and values, when we make theological statements, when we design our model organizational structures, when we develop policies for how we shall function as a global community, when we disburse our financial resources for mission. We do all of this by common agreement. We hold in common our statement of fundamental beliefs, we share a church manual for how a local congregation shall function, and we share and hold in high esteem God’s prophetic gift to this church in the writings of Ellen G White. We are neither a national church, nor a regional church, nor a loosely textured fraternity of such. We sit in council, annually and quinquennially, at which we have a fair and carefully worked out system of representation in which we are all equal partners, with equal voice and vote. We are globally one such as you will find in no other Christian community. This, we hold, is God’s plan for us, and we will not so organize our structures or services as to compromise what God has given to us.
   
   
2. Mission
   Since God caused this movement to arise some 160 years ago, we have always known that we have a mission which is global and which we cannot distribute to others. This is not meant to be either arrogant or exclusive, for we respect and honor other Christian communions who uphold the name of Jesus Christ and the Bible as His Word. But we hold that it was for a purpose in Mission in the last days of earth’s history that we were made.  Through preaching, through teaching, through healing, through combating poverty and natural disasters, we have a comprehensive global mission by which a foundation/platform will be laid in this life on which life for eternity will be built and which will be realized when he comes who says; “Behold, I make all things new”.  Making our fellow-human beings ready for that moment is our mission. It is not finished in one part of the world until we have taken it everywhere. – It is the bond we have in the Spirit which leads us to have a shared ownership in Mission everywhere. And we pool our resources to make that possible. Every elected leader in this church must accept the global mandate we carry. Whatever structures we have and whatever ministries and services we may offer they must be such as to make mission maximum effective. We also hold that no one member of our church community is exempted from participation in our global responsibility.
   
   
3. Corporate and government models are no pattern for church.
   Because ‘Unity’ and ‘Mission’ are pivotal to who we are and what we do, no organizational structure in government or industry can serve as a model for what we must have. They have values which are driven by politics and profit – sometimes excessive selfishness and greed. The church, by contrast, has an agenda which is based on service; we are there to give. But, clearly, at the same time we have to be practical and pragmatic. Taking with us the values we have identified when we talk about unity and mission, we must simply ask ourselves: What is realistic and possible? What kind of structure is going to work well to obtain and preserve these values? We seek the answer to that through prayer and a process of consultation. We do it by asking questions about the development and use of local resources; by critically examining the proposals so that the structures and ministries we have set up do not disproportionately drain the church of its capacity to engage in mission; by making sure that a fair participation and representation, across the whole diverse spectrum of the church (race and gender), is made possible and provided for in what is being proposed. The threat of becoming ‘top-heavy’ is a lingering one, and unless properly addressed will become a liability.
   
   
4. The need for flexibility
   Both the reality of rapid growth as well as the reality of virtually no growth will both place their different demands on the flexibility provisions in our structures and in the flow of our services. Where there is rapid growth an adequate spread of leadership personnel is often not available in pace with the growth. However, at the same time, structures and leadership need to be near to where people are to ensure that pastoral attention is in place and that the growth obtained does not scatter unattended. For the sake of unity and nurture some organizational structure, even a simplified and transitional in via structure, must be in place. This will call for some flexibility. In time, when leadership personnel and financial resources have caught up with the growth of membership numbers, a more permanent structure can be set up. -- Similarly, where there is no growth, or virtually no growth, an over-elaborate organizational structure may negatively impact the membership base and its confidence in leadership’s ability to use their financial resources to best effect. Demands for streamlined and less ‘top heavy’ structures are regularly made. The demands for a simplified, non-overlapping structure must be provided for by carefully defined flexibility norms.

   Flexibility provisions in such situations will send important signals to the ‘grass roots’ which enhance trust in leadership and a sense of ownership in matters which govern their own local church-life. Also, new criteria for tithe-sharing and representation must be developed to accompany flexibility proposals.

5. Increased need of better communication reciprocally between local membership and global leadership in order to obtain and sustain a sense of involvement and partnership in the global life of the church.
   Without good communication, from grass roots to leadership and from leadership to the grass roots, isolation is inevitable. In time that leads to a provincial life where a local congregation is primarily occupied with itself and its immediate environment, but without a vision for mission around the world. However important witness and service to one’s nearest neighbors are, we carry as a church an international mission assignment for which we are equally responsible. One must ask: Are the structures we currently have an obstacle to communication with its accompanying sense of ownership? Or is there something we could fix within the structures we have which would repair communication breakdowns? How can we, without radical restructuring, overcome communication obstacles and keep before our members around the world a vision of a mission around the world?

   It is through the General Conference and its regional offices (Divisions) that the global perspective is held before our church community. The General Conference is assigned uniquely the responsibility for a global mandate for mission. Therefore, the necessary communication to accomplish what we are seeking must flow the full distance from the General Conference to the people who worship in the local church, and back again from them to the world headquarters.

6. Local talents must increasingly find better ways of expressing themselves in  creative leadership ministry.
   The question of where and at what levels do you place departments, ministries, and services is a question we seem to meet at regular intervals. Our tradition is well known – historically these departments are served at all levels from the world headquarters to the local conference. And ideas, values, and directions have tended to flow from the higher organization to the subsidiary one. This is the way we have done it for decades. But the world and our place in it has changed so much just in the last three decades. What was once a good way of doing it cannot be assumed to be so today. One must ask: What is different now? Questions about the placement and flow of departmental ministries must be considered when we have thought through the matter of organization – that would seem to be an appropriate sequence.

   I would suggest that as we approach our task our minds must be open, engaged in prayer for God’s guidance, both when we are together and when we are separate, and we must, in a way, try to be set ‘free from ourselves’ and the specific role we may now fill in the church so that we can go into this assignment with pure hearts concerned only for the good of the church, and specifically focused on (1) the global unity of our church, and (2) the most effective use of resources for mission.