How I Would Reorganize the SDA Denomination

[Gregory Matthews]

Post # 1

It is very easy to criticize the SDA denomination.  Such is not bad in itself.  It can be an agent of change. It can be good in playing a role in bringing change about.  It can be positive and not just negative. There are times when I take that role and do become a critic of the denomination.

I have been at the past two General Conference Sessions, at least in part.  I was not there for the entire session in Atlanta.  I was scheduled to stay for the entire session in Texas, but I ended up leaving before it ended. 

For the past 18 months, or so, I have been asking myself how I would reorganize this monolithic denomination in order to perform its mission in the "end times" in which we are living.  Guiding me in this is my belief that at the very end of time this denominational structure will no longer effectively exist.  Mission and ministry will be carried on by individual members and without the support of higher levels denominational organization. 

If this is true, it may be that we should begin to prepare for this time.  It just may be that we need to break the dependence upon higher organizations that has come to exist.

I also think that coming out of this perspective, I should be willing to suggest how we as a denomination might reorganize for the time that we may face in the future.  That is what I intend to do in this thread.

Frankly, I have not fully developed my thinking on this subject.  It will take more time than I will have in one setting to verbalize.  So, while I will attempt to do so in this thread, I am will lock it until I have   had the opportunity to further explain what I am thinking about.  After I have done that, I will open the thread up for discussion.

Stay tuned.   

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Post # 2

I must acknowledge that two of the principles that guide my thinking on the reorganization of the SDA denomination stem from advice given to us  years ago by Ellen White.

1)  EGE clearly spoke against "kingly power."   Yes, she spoke about this in the context of the kingly power exercised by one person.  See:  8T:236 and Chl 49.3  I believe that if EGW were alive today, she would  rebuke denominational leadership over the use of kingly power that exists in the ability to control the membership of committees that administer the SDA denomination today and in addition the power that exists to influence the election of people to positions of denominational responsibility. 

2)  Ellen White clearly advocated the establishment of Union Conferences to get ministry in the local Conference out from under the authority of the General Conference.  See ChL 26.1  I believe that she would rebuke those today who do not follow her advice and have attempted to   give the General Conference authority of the individual local Conferences..

[Gregory Matthews]

Post # 3

I think that it is of value to recognize the official organizational levels that exist within the SDA denomination.  They are:

The General Conference

The Unions

The Local Conference

The Individual Congregation

Some will ask me why I did not include the Divisions.  The Divisions are considered to be a part of the General Conference. They are not officially recognized as a separate organizational level of the SDA denomination.  Some of us may disagree with this.  Regardless, this is the official story.

In this set-up each organizational authority is funded by that which is below it.  In addition, authority and power begins at the top and flows down to levels below.  There is a sense in which each level is supposed to support the levels above it.   IOW, the local congregation supports all levels above it, as well as attempting to do congregational ministry.

I would seek to implement the following changes:

1)  The basis of authority lies in the local congregation and the local conference.  All other levels of authority are very limited.

2)  The mission of each level of authority would be directed to supporting the needs of the local congregation and the local Conference, as they who were actually doing the work in the field determined their needs to be.  In essence, this would mean that the General Conference had no authority over the local congregation.

3)  I would add the Divisions as a level of organization, but with limited powers specific to a large region of the world.

4) The General  Conference would act more on a global basis.  This  would include building communication/relationships with global organizations, which could not involved more limited geographic organizations.  IOW,  The NAD would not be expected to build a relationship with the United Nations.  But, the General Conference might chose to do so. 

5)  The Divisions would do so on a mores limited geographic basis.  As an example, the NAD might develop relationships with the Association of Professional Chaplains as such might be considered helpful to the provision of pastoral care in our hospitals and for the acceptance of SDA clergy as hospital chaplains in hospitals not operated by the denomination.

6)  The real mission and ministry would involved the Unions, the local Conference and the individual congregations.  the  majority of denominational resources would flow downward in this direction.

7) This would entail the closure of some departments in the General Conference in their establishment in the Divisions, Unions and local Conferences, as appropriate.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Post # 4

Functions of the General Conference:

Probably few of our members realize the magnitude of the involvement of the General  Conference in the operations of the SDA Denomination.  I intend to list some of them below.  My listing is not up to date.  It is several years old.  Current listings may have added functions and may have reduced functions.  And I am only going to list some of them.  I will not list them all.  Some of these functions are performed by a few people, and some are performed by dozens.

I will suggest how these functions could be reduced to lower levels:

GC:     General Conference

D:        Divisions

U:        Unions

LC:      Local Conference

Con:   Local Congregation.

RS:  This is a function that has been restructured in recent times.

It should be noted that in some cases, the functions should be divided between several levels.  In these cases the responsibility for the actual application of the policy in the field should be on the lowest level possible.

General Conference Departments:

Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries: D,  This is in place now, at least in part.

Children’s Ministries:  D, U

Communication, (Public Relations, Radio & Television):  GC, D, U LC

Education:  D, U, LC

Family Ministries:  U, LC

Health Ministries:  ?

Ministerial Association:  Major changes,  D, U, LC

Public Affairs & Religious Liberty:  GC, D, U, LC

Publishing: ?

Sabbath School & Personal Ministries:  U, LC

Stewardship:  LC

Trust Services:  U, LC

Women’s Ministries:  U, LC

Youth Ministries:  U, LC

Agency:  Adventist Development & Relief Agency:  GC, or go independent.

General Conference Services Corporations & other Organizations:

NOTE:  There are legal issues involved with some of these that might complicate/prevent transfers.

Adventist Health International:  ?

Adventist Heritage Ministry: D, Primarily NAD

Adventist Mission:  GC, D, U

Adventist Review: D, U

Adventist World Radio: D, U

Auditing Service: D, U

Biblical Research Institute:  GC, D, U,

Chan Shun International Foundation:  ?

Christian Record Services, Inc.  D, Primarily NAD

General Conference Corporation: GC

Geoscience Research Institute: GC, D, U

Hope Channel, Inc.: GC, D

Institute of World Mission:  GC,  D, U

Loma Linda University:  NAD

Office of the General Counsel:  GC

Office of Global Software & Technology: D 

Transportation & International Personnel Service:  RS,  D, U, LC

EGW Estate:  D

NOTE:  I will come back later and list where I believe these can be transferred.  For now I will post them to illustrate the massive number of functions that the General Conference is  involved in.  This results in a large number of employees. 

In all cases I would attempt to have the authority transferred to the level where it was being applied.  The GC would need some legal counsel, so would the Divisions.  But, the Unions and the local Conferences could handle legal matters that affected them.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Post # 5:

Let me illustrate.  I would make major changes in the Ministerial Department.

1)  I would move Ministry Magazine out of the GC  and to the Divisions.  Each could chose the extent to which their target audience was SDA clergy or non-SDA clergy..  With that decision made, the Divisions could develop their own publication, in the languages needed in their area and the specific needs of their target audience.

2)  I would move Ministry Magazine our of the Ministerial Department and to a semi-independent  status within the Division.

3)  I would reorganize the Ministerial department to focus on supporting the identified needs as developed in the Unions and the Local Conferences. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Post # 6:

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Post # 7:

I would put in place a system where:

1) Leadership positions in the denominations would be limited in tiem and people would be rotated out and back into congregational ministry, as the most important function of the denomilnaiton.

2)  I would put in place a more formalized method of preparing people to serve in administative positions.

3)  I would allow some manner of individuals chosing to formally transition into positions of responsibility.  That method would be out in the open, which it is not in the present.

[Gregory Matthews]

Post # 8:

 

O. K. Folks.  We are open for business.  Feel free to comment.

I do not claim perfection.

Hwever, I have been brief and recognize that it would have to be more detained than I have given.

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

don't the local conferences (LC) already have the departments you mentioned?  

(sure are a lot of "ministries", aren't there?!)

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes.  That is true.  But, in many situations the LC is simply implementing what was developed and imposed upon them by some other organizational level. I would move the development down stream to those who would actually use it.

E.G.  In women's ministry programs would be developed that best fit the needs of the local area.  I do not happen to believe that every geographic area in the world has the same exact needs.

Let me further illustrate by an example from the past, which is no longer true today:

As a congregational pastor, which I once was, the local Conference had a person who was there to help us in our local congregations with our Sabbath school programs.  That person had a an exact schedule for the Sabbath School time down to the exact minute and I  do not exaggerate.  For every question that we might ask that person, we would get an answer as to what the schedule said we should do at that exact minute of time.  E.G.  At minute X you should have the Mission story and it should take Y minutes.  At minute Z your have the SS Secty. give a report on the Sabbath School the preceding week and in that report, you tell people the names of the hymns that were sung.  Folks, I am not kidding.

Few of our members are aware of the mass of policies and other provisions that tell local congregations what to do.;  Are you aware that there is written policy that states what should be on the agenda of a Church Board meeting?  Should not the local congregation be able to set its own agenda.  NOTE:  In a period of time that is less than five years, I have seen a well-informed lay member of a congregation attempt to force this level of compliance upon a local congregation and in this case it was a major congregation in the Conference.  While I am not being specific as to the issue, I have seen it.

I am quite favorable of the training that I received at the Seminary at Andrews.  But, I had a class in which Departmental persons came down from GC   HQ and told us exactly what we should be doing in our congregations in the areas in which each of them served.  That class was useless.  It did not meet the actual needs that we faced in our congregations.  It presented nothing that taught us how to evaluate and put into effect programs that met our congregational needs.

On one occasion, the Conference had decided to move me to another church.  This was at a time when congregational leaders were being voted in to a new fiscal year.  We  had a Conference President who often did not trust his pastors.  He would   bypass them to tell local congregational leaders what to do.  At this time he wrote directly to all of the Elders in the Conference.  In this letter,  he told the Elders exactly what he wanted   as to their duties, and in addition, he  told them what he wanted them to have in qualifications to serve.  The result was that no member of a  congregation that I had was willing to serve in the position of Head Elder.

 

 

  

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

sounds like everyone was (is?) expected to salute, rather than pray...

[CoAspen]

Some great ideas, so I will bite my tongue about the current process!