Models for Restructuring the Advent Christian Denomination

In my first article, we surveyed sobering statistics that indicate our leaders are spread too thin because of the size of our denomination’s structure. In the second, we walked through our history and found that Advent Christians have long sought a more effective structure for the denomination, but came up short despite notable progress.

In this last article, I will lay out what will be basically required of any model to complete the unfinished work of our past. On top of this, I will also offer two rudimentary models for restructuring the denomination which would alleviate some of the stress of our leadership shortage and give us stronger footing for revitalizing the denomination.

Our Fundamental Need

There is a reason why past leaders made appeals to consider presbyterian and even episcopal models of denominational governance. While their generation, more than our own, enjoyed a profound sense of fraternity and wholehearted embrace of our distinctives, experience taught them that this alone was not enough to enable the Advent Christian body to act as one. As Clarence Hewitt stated in 1945, “The trouble is not that we are a congregational body [but] that we have obeyed the letter of Congregationalism rather than the spirit of it.”

What did he mean? I believe he meant that congregationalism does not preclude the existence of higher authoritative bodies beyond the local church. We have partially acknowledged this insofar as we have gone beyond the local church in making the conference the body which ordains ministers. However, we are also all familiar with the disregard that churches and other lower bodies have for the higher bodies in our denomination; they are more often ignored than honored.

Consequently, the next Executive Director will inherit the unenviable task of trying to herd 244 cats (otherwise known as churches). Perhaps he will be so fortunate as to have a regional president or superintendent who joins him in that effort (though that is also uncertain by the nature of our structure). Even so, the impossibility of the task is hardly reduced.

I will not write the new bylaws here and now. More simply, being an Advent Christian church must bring both privileges and responsibilities. A standard must be held - for belief, for support, and for submission, at every level of the denomination. This will only come about if we bind ourselves together under a congregationalist bond of mutual submission, wherein the lower bodies submit to the higher bodies, even as the higher bodies ultimately submit to those lower that invest them with authority. Now is an ideal time to strengthen our commitments in both letter and spirit as we consider other practical forms of restructuring the denomination.

Three is a Crowd

Stepping beyond this fundamental need that has always existed regardless of the numbers, we do now look to those awful digits. As I demonstrated in my first article, we are unnecessarily stretched thin. The CCCC and Converge denominations require fewer officers and have more churches. They are able to do this because they have only two levels (national and regional) while we have three.

The trouble for Advent Christians begins with the reality that we have far too many conferences. This may come as a surprise to someone who comes from a larger conference like Eastern North Carolina, which enjoys 32 churches. ENC is the only conference with over 30 churches. 68% of our 22 conferences have ten or fewer churches. 36% have five or fewer churches. Only 27% of our conferences have fifteen or more churches.

If we required that a conference have a minimum of fifteen churches, our number of conferences would drop from 22 down to at most eleven. This consolidation alone would go a long way in relieving the demands on our limited pool of leaders.

However, such a requirement would make one conference of the Western Region (total of 15 churches) and one conference of the Central Region (total of 22 churches). This breaks our current conception of the scope of conferences. This combined with the example of other denominations that utilize two levels naturally leads us to consider other potential models.

The Regional Conference Model

Under this model, regions are replaced by enlarged conferences. These are called “regional conferences” because they encompass a larger geographical area than conferences of the past.

Assuming we could consolidate down to eleven regional conferences and estimating six officers for each, we would have 66 RC positions denomination-wide. If each RC president occupied a position on the Executive Council (consider the possibilities for united action in that) and ACGC maintained the positions of president, recording secretary, and now two at-large positions, that would result in the same 15 total positions on the council and a total of 70 positions denomination-wide. This is a reduction of 92 positions, 57% less than our current approximate of 162. This figure fittingly anticipates our impending loss of leadership given that 59% of our pastors are 60 and older.

Superintendents could shift into a role as the regional conference pastor or come under ACGC employment to continue to serve their territory in refocused capacities. Consolidated financial resources would theoretically make this possible, especially as certain expenses are reduced.

Regions Only Model

Alternatively, conferences could simply be eliminated, leaving us with ACGC and the Regions as they are. This would be a reduction of 110 positions, 68% less than our current 162, leaving us with 52 positions. Undoubtedly, this is a leaner approach, but it does provoke the imagination: how might we use those 110 people who now have more time on their hands?

Looking to the model of the CCCC, conference presidents would be replaced by area pastors who would be nominated and elected to that position based on their locale. Depending on their duties, they might receive a stipend for their ministry. They would be responsible for overseeing and supporting their local pastors, creating opportunities for fellowship among them, and for organizing ad hoc ministerial committees (approved by the regional board) for ordaining pastors and credentialing ministers.

Essentially, you would be removing the formalities of conference business, all the excessive positions, and instead be focusing on relationships and supporting emerging leaders at the local level.

The “area pastor” concept could certainly be also employed in the regional conference model, especially in vast spaces like the West coast or the Midwest. Of the two models, I think this one may be the simpler, while regional conferences may offer greater local support for those on the East coast. At this point, I would be happy if we embraced either.

The Cost of Doing Nothing

It is true that making these changes will come with some difficulty. It is also true that there are other areas of our denominational life worth addressing, such as renewing our Advent Christian identity and training or recruiting new leaders. Can we walk and chew gum at the same time? I surely hope so - this will be required if we will meet the challenge before us.

If we renew our structure, I do believe we will be a more effective denomination. Our pastors’ energies will no longer be so strained - they will be able to devote more energy to their churches and to other pressing needs. Instead of going to another board meeting, maybe they will now grab lunch with that young person who should consider going into ministry. Maybe instead of maintaining the status quo, they can begin collaborating with fellow leaders to bring renewal to their area (without the annoyance of Robert’s Rules).* Returning to the fundamental problem that I initially addressed above, maybe if we once and for all resolve to bind ourselves together, to follow the lead of higher bodies, we can finally administer solutions and get off the carousel of complaining.

Some of you may wish to leave things as they are. The difficulties of change just seem too costly. Make no mistake though - doing nothing also comes with a definite cost. It comes at the cost of walking backwards into change, as conferences are gradually forced to consolidate or their leaders become even more overburdened as churches continue to close. It comes at the expense of pastoral energies that could be invested elsewhere. It comes at the price of missing the opportunity to pivot while 59% of our aging pastors remain in ministry. Doing nothing means handing the bill to the next generation of pastors who will be forced to declare bankruptcy. As Erik Reynolds has written, we must adapt or die.

We talk a great deal of how we need more leaders. To get more leaders, the leaders we have will need to lead. They will need to have long conversations, think through challenges, and lead by example in doing difficult things. This is the substance of leading others - possessing the resolve to change course when necessary. If we avoid staring our denominational demise in the face, if we fail to rally the troops for fear of failure, then we who claim to be leaders are mere officeholders, rubber-stampers, empty suits.

You need not agree with all or any of my solutions. Just please don’t tell me that doing nothing will suffice.

If you do nothing in a difficult time, your strength is limited.
- Proverbs 24:10 [CSB]

First Article: The Advent Christian Denominations Needs to be Restructured
Second Article: A Short History of the Advent Christian Search for Structure

*The Restoration Network has been promoting exactly this sort of collaboration. In the Heritage Conference, I have been bringing pastors together through RN (3-4 times a year) for fellowship and thinking through those things that we could do better if we worked together. We are already seeing fruit from those gatherings.