Misinformation and the True Aim of Restructuring
We are a people of the truth. First and foremost, we are a people who emphasize the truth of God’s Word. This traces back to William Miller’s searching of Scripture and believing he discovered the date of Christ’s return. Although we trust that we all agree that his datesetting was wrong, many among us admire his attempt to truly understand the truth of God from His Word. In the mid-20th Century, there were significant debates among us as we sought to understand what it means that God’s Word is true (see Adventism Confronts Modernity). Both the current Declaration of Principles and the proposed 2026 revision begin with a strong emphasis on the truth of God’s Word.
God is the God of all Truth. His people, therefore, are people of the truth. This applies to God’s Word, but it also applies to every aspect of our lives.
We are all familiar with the traditional American courtroom oath, “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” As Christians, however, we should be so fully characterized by the truth that no such oath is even necessary (Matthew 5:37; James 5:12). We suspect all of us have this as our goal. Any of us, however, can develop blindspots. In fact, we all do on various matters quite frequently. This is one of the reasons God has given us brothers and sisters in Christ: that through the work of the Spirit in us we might sharpen each other as iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:17; Matthew 18:15; Galatians 6:1; II Thessalonians 3:15). This regards not only our intentional faults, but even those areas where we are well-intentioned yet have missed the mark.
We often think in terms of truth versus lies. That is an important contrast, and usually a rather black-and-white one. What we often overlook, however, is misinformation. Misinformation is a distortion of the truth. Often it is unintentional. We mishear what someone else said, or we repeat statements that have made their way through three, five, or ten other people, like the old "telephone game” many of us were shown in elementary school. Other times we may convince ourselves that something is true, without evidence, because it simply sounds right to us, or because it supports our point well.
No matter the reason or the good intentions, misinformation distorts the truth.
Over the past few months, there have been many forms of misinformation in articles, social media posts, and conversations. Once more this has occurred via a recent article posted here on Advent Christian Voices by David E. Dean, Reorganization: A Panacea for Denominational Woes?. The goal in this article is to shine light on the areas of misinformation included therein, so that the truth might be known among us, and so that whichever way we may vote at the 2026 Triennial Convention, we will be basing our votes on accurate information.
What History Tells Us
David relates a history that is more or less correct and corresponds with the narrative found in Tom’s 2023 article, A Short History of the Advent Christian Search for Structure. David contends that our history indicates that “form follows function”, simply meaning that various ministry needs arose (fellowship, publications, missions, etc.) and that forms were developed to meet those needs. Likewise, he tells the tale of the failed Forward Movement and the emergence of United Ministries. This is all uncontroversial as far as it goes – David knows our story well.
However, he eventually turns from history to analysis. Speaking of both the Forward Movement and United Ministries, he states
“It is worth noting that neither of the first two attempts at reorganization resulted in a revitalisation of the denomination. Rather, they deflected the denomination’s energies from a unifying function (or mission) and without that denominational vitality diminished.”
Stated otherwise, David claims that both the Forward Movement and (supposedly) United Ministries failed because they turned denominational energies away from a common mission. But is this true?
The Forward Movement by all accounts failed because the movement ran aground the rocky shoals of Advent Christian autonomy under the flawed leadership of Lester F. Reynolds. Advent Christians were not interested in uniting their efforts for a common mission, preferring to dictate their own interests. History is more complicated than mere appearances, but, if anything, that episode seems more reminiscent of our own in that our current detractors seem to prize absolute autonomy above genuine unity. Denominational leaders sought unity in mission at that time, a worthy aspiration, but failed because of imprudent strategies and lack of support.
Has United Ministries turned out to be a failure? Perhaps, if it was supposed to be a cure-all. Consolidating our funds and ministry institutions has not put us on the incline. However, did it prevent a steeper decline? It stands to reason that it probably has — without it, we can imagine Advent Christians eventually dispersing beyond form, dust tossed to the wind. We must admit the forces at work in our decline are greater than anything such consolidation could counter. Better than nothing, yes, but insufficient.
As Tom explains in his aforementioned article, our forebears were striving to go further than what they were able to achieve in their time. They wrestled with how they might overcome a spirit of autonomy that inhibited unity and cooperative action, while still retaining a form of congregationalism. With that in mind, we can imagine they would not have considered their limited achievements a cure-all or panacea — progress perhaps, but no silver bullet.
The restructuring changes that have been proposed in our time are of a different stripe than what has preceded. First, the conversation began (2021) with an interest in consolidation, not primarily out of concern for financial appeals, but because we patently lack the leaders to fill so many denominational positions. The decline is real and it is with respect to that reality that change has been discussed. When a house becomes too big for a person to manage, they downsize. It is a matter of being responsible and working with what we have, even while we strive to address the root cause – a deficit of leaders that could fill these positions.
In the end, the final proposal has mostly left such consolidation efforts in the hands of the conferences and regions. Instead of consolidation, the task force put its finger on the matter that escaped redress in the 20th century — reckoning with the radical spirit of autonomy, the lack of standards and accountability that has plagued us.
Now, is this a panacea for all our woes? Hardly! It has never been supposed that these changes would be a cure-all and that no work in other areas would be needed. Like the spokes on a wagon wheel, these proposals only possibly add a few more spokes; the prior generation added some of their own with United Ministries. Apart from whatever other spokes might remain to be added, there remains the basic task of traveling the road — no solution can promise an easy trail. These changes are not sufficient to address every challenge, but we believe they are necessary if we will have any chance in meeting them. We would love nothing more than to move on from these issues to the practical challenges of ministry, to hit the trail (e.g. raising up pastors/missionaries, engaging laypeople, planting churches, etc.); getting there requires the kind of clarity and order proposed in these changes.
Ultimately, the unifying function that brings us together in the General Conference is the aim of supporting the ministry of our local churches. Our concerns are not those of a movement (as at the start) but of stewarding the ministry of our churches – a difference Tom highlights in his 2024 article, Church or Movement: Advent Christians Must Decide. With that function in mind, it is only to be expected that we would take concern for our beliefs (and moral character no less) by establishing clear standards and providing means of oversight.
The Scope of General Conference Authority
David claims the details of this proposal represent “a drastic overreach” of General Conference authority. Indeed, we have often heard it said that the General Conference is effectively powerless in relation to our churches, conferences, and regions – a refrain that has led many to resign themselves from attempting any reform. Such claims are built on a basic misunderstanding, best illustrated by considering the situation of the local church.
When a local church exercises church discipline, it only extends as far as a person’s involvement or membership in the congregation – in other words, their relationship with the church. Personal liberties beyond the church are not and cannot be curtailed; he or she may seek membership in a different congregation or dispense with the faith altogether. Nonetheless, our society tends to view any exercise of discipline as an overreach of authority, when in fact it is only managing the relationship between a person and that local church.
The same applies in the case of the General Conference. The regional associations, conferences, churches, and associate organizations that are members of the General Conference exist as their own self-supporting organizations. The General Conference cannot, in fact, force them to do anything – just as the local church cannot force its members to do anything. The only thing it can do is manage the relationship with its members.
If a member organization was removed from the membership of the General Conference (or left of its own accord), it would continue to exist and exercise the liberties that have belonged to it all along. On the one hand, it is the prerogative of the General Conference (delegate body) to determine its standards of membership; members can be told what they need to do to maintain membership in the General Conference. On the other, members are free to ignore these expectations and either leave or eventually be removed from the membership of the General Conference.
The reality is that no church, conference, regional association, or any other organization possesses a birthright membership in the General Conference. Membership is conditional on meeting (and continuing to meet) the standards of membership and acceptance by the delegate body (in the case of new members). The General Conference (via the delegate body) is free to amend its standards of membership, just as any other organization may do so.
In the case of this proposal, there is no overreach. All of the proposed stipulations and structure are naturally within the purview of the General Conference. If any member disagrees and fails to maintain standards that align with the standards of the General Conference, it is their right to do so and it is the right of the General Conference delegate body to ultimately end the relationship if these differences are irreconcilable.
The True Aims (and Limits) of Restructuring
Below is a series of summaries of claims David made in his article followed by brief responses that intend to set the record straight as accurately as possible. At times we will agree. Other times, however, we will point out where the statement includes misinformation.
At the 2023 General Conference, people expressed concern about our current four-level structure, asking to reduce the layers, but we have now been given a different restructuring proposal.
There are two matters that need to be addressed here. First, the content of the 2023 General Conference discussion: We heartily affirm that structural overhead was discussed – both formally and informally – at that convention. However, it was not the only matter of concern. Of equal, or perhaps even greater, concern was the matter of Advent Christian Identity. Structural consolidation was one matter under consideration, but there were also others of equal importance.
Second, we fully acknowledge, as Nathaniel wrote a few months ago, that the current proposals do little (but not nothing) to address our structural overhead. It is a problem we need to reckon with. In fact, the groundwork has been laid out for conferences and regions to take appropriate action in consolidation as best fits their own needs. Something we should all keep in mind, however, is that effective change rarely happens all at once. It often takes time. If we address our identity now, that should better prepare us to address our structural overhead in the future.The current restructuring proposal includes a doctrinal test for ordination.
Yes, that is correct. In order to clarify our identity as a group of churches in relationship with one another before Christ, it was unanimously agreed by the task force (consisting of a wide variety of people from throughout the denomination) that a basic, unifying doctrinal standard for pastors, churches, conferences, regions, and associate members is a key part of defining Advent Christian identity. The alternative that David proposed would seem to be doctrinal deficiency among our pastors and other leaders for the sake of structural effectiveness.The current restructuring proposal adds another administrative layer to the current structure.
This is incorrect. Currently at the General Conference level there is a Judiciary Committee. The General Conference Ministerial Committee replaces the Judiciary Committee.It is simply not the case that there are too many organizations appealing for money.
We admit this argument is somewhat subjective. However, when the various denominational statistics are assessed, we think most people would say otherwise. This becomes even more clear when we are compared to other congregationalist denominations who function more efficiently and effectively with significantly less overhead (both financial and positional) even though they are 10-20 times our size.Missions have a disproportionate allotment.
We honestly have no idea where this argument comes from. It is possible that it has come up in private discussions that the author has been involved in. It may even be something that has been brought up to the ACGC staff. However, it is not an argument we have heard regarding restructuring. It was certainly not part of the discussions of the Task Force.The issue is not appeals, but relevance and passion.
Financial appeals were not a focus of our Task Force discussions, nor were they brought up, from what we recall, during the conversations at the 2023 triennial Convention. The discussions focused, instead, on the financial and positional overhead we have.
We do agree, however, that passion and relevance are factors. When people are motivated, they are actively involved and they give. However, as noted above, the statistics reveal the truth of the matter here. We are simply asking too few people to do too many things. But let’s suppose the issue is a lack of passion. Might the lack of passion stem from our lack of unity in belief?“Why aren’t we making disciples here in North America?”
That is a good question. ACGC is already making attempts to address this, especially through church planting and leadership development. However, the real answer to that question rests on our local churches. ACGC should be supporting our local churches in this critical responsibility.“We lack a clear, motivating, and outward-focused function (or mission) and therefore have no unifying principle for joint action.”
The clarity of ACGC’s mission is, certainly, an important matter. The current bylaws express that mission. The proposed bylaws provide much greater clarity. And that mission is not about our past. We love history. History is important. And history influences who we are today. But our history should not, must not, hold us hostage. We need not fixate on defining our identity and purpose by our denominational history. Instead we should seek to faithfully steward the church ministry – locally and in our inter-church relations – by clearly defining who and what we are.It is upside down thinking to have requirements, like financial contribution, for churches to be in good standing with ACGC.
First, those requirements are not really about being in good standing with, or supporting, a denomination. They are about us being in good standing with and supporting one another. If we are congregationalists like we say we are, then that shared relationship matters deeply. Either we stand firmly with one another, or we don’t stand at all.
Second, as David has already alluded to, financial contribution shows buy-in. And the contribution requirement is minimal. In fact, as we have previously shared, it could be as little as a penny. It is simply a means to show we are committed to one another.Elimination of conferences with fewer than six churches.
The assumptions made here are simply not true. The proposed changes do not make it possible to remove, close, or disassociate with current conferences that have fewer than six churches. Should such conferences consolidate? That is a matter of opinion. But the final recommendation of the Executive Council was for this requirement to only apply to new conferences, and the wording of the proposed bylaws clearly reflects this:
”Any conferences applying for membership must include at least six Advent Christian churches.”
Do we have complex situations among our conferences and regions? Absolutely! But that does not mean we should simply do nothing. While we have not added new conferences in recent memory, it is a basic possibility the bylaws should anticipate and which we should desire as Advent Christians. We want to grow and there is plenty of territory yet to cover in the United States.Autonomy and Independence.
Let’s ask an important question: where in God’s Word are autonomy and independence set forth as the ideal? The first picture of human autonomy and independence is shown in the Garden of Eden: Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. The biblical pattern for the church, however, is dependence on God (John 15:4-5; Proverbs 3:5-7; Jeremiah 17:5-8; Acts 17:24-28; II Corinthians 3:4-5) and interdependence with our brothers and sisters in Christ (I Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:11-16; Romans 12:3-8; Hebrews 10:19-25). That is not about hierarchy, neither do the restructuring proposals create a new hierarchy. It is about the types of relationships we are supposed to have with God and with one another.
Sticking with the Status Quo
In closing, it is worth contemplating the future of the General Conference and its membership if the delegate body does not adopt these changes. As much as we might be expected to answer for these proposals, our detractors must likewise answer for maintaining the status quo.
They must answer for abiding a situation in which there are no standards of belief, commitment, or cooperation for those who would be members of the General Conference - an open borders policy. Already, non-trinitarianism is patently tolerated – what else will be tolerated in the coming years? This question looms larger with every passing year as the old guard of Advent Christian ministers pass on to retirement or their rest, leaving vacancies that will be largely filled by those from outside the denomination (if they will be filled at all). The informal creeds held by those who enjoyed a shared history of collegiate studies and camp-meetings, which brought about a trust built on relationships, is actively deteriorating before a new generation of leaders without that history. This leaves the General Conference in a position in which it will quite literally tolerate any set of beliefs and practices among its membership.
Do our detractors actually embrace this? Do they suppose there is some other alternative than simply adopting such standards? It often seems they think we can outgun so many false teachings by force of persuasion, offering more “education.” We do not deny the importance of education, but it is a deficient safeguard, especially in the immediate. A castle might have soaring towers and imposing walls, a metaphorical display of all intellectual power, but what will it mean if there is no gate? It will mean we are fundamentally compromised.
A self-effacing General Conference, neither offering standards nor direction to its membership, invites the whirlwind. It invites a situation of division, in which each conference and region does what is right in its own eyes. It is written, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Yes, the current debate highlights some division among us. Are we to believe the solution is to welcome division and fragmentation without end? We strive here to define what unites us. What can our counterparts say unites us?
It is true there are limits on what the General Conference can do. The delegate body can define expectations, but it is up to each member to take responsibility for its sphere of ministry. Under this proposal, the General Conference defines standards of belief and ministry (e.g. minimum of three ordained ministers for ministerial committees). Beyond this, members enjoy a great deal of latitude. If this is not the purpose of the General Conference, if it stands for nothing and does nothing, what exactly is its purpose? Things like publications, missions, leadership development, and church planting might be suggested – but to what end? How can there be a common message or mission without common beliefs? What will we teach the leaders we are developing? What will the churches believe that we are planting? It invites a strange situation in which the members of the General Conference are called upon to sponsor projects that hold no assurance of representing their interests, because there are no beliefs which can in fact be said to unite us. Some might plead, “Just do ministry”, but how can we when we are not united?
This proposal emerged from a year-long process, a task force that included not just ourselves but ten others, followed by the judgment and revision of the Executive Council. We reckoned with the needs of the denomination and also the realistic possibilities at this stage. Do our critics suggest this simply be tried again? What result would they hope for –- fewer or no standards, less or no accountability, suggestions rather than direction? We believe we have proposed what can and needs to be done. Anything less will fall short and endorse the weaknesses described above.
We urge that the delegates of the 2026 Triennial Convention take this necessary action to unite the General Conference and lay a strong foundation for our mission in the 21st century. By God’s grace, we dare to hope that our best days are not behind us, but before us.
Relevant Articles and Documents:
Organizational Structure Task Force Report (note: DIFFERENT from proposed changes)
Announcement of Proposed Changes to Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws
Restructuring Proposal Summary (Graphic)
Moving Forward Together: Why ACGC's 2026 Restructuring Matters
As Congregationalist as the Congregationalists
A Short History of the Advent Christian Search for Structure