NOT Proposed: Top-Down Leadership
I don’t usually write articles in the style of a point-by-point response, but in this case, I am compelled to do so. Jeff Vann’s recent article, Top Down Leadership is a blatant misrepresentation of the proposals that are being brought before the Advent Christian delegate body. You can anticipate fuller treatments of the restructuring proposal that will provide informative explanations of the implications of the proposed changes to the bylaws. For now, I just want to address this brazen misinformation and set the record straight. Let’s begin.
“It’s my understanding that Advent Christian General Conference is considering becoming more top-down in its approach to leadership. Some other evangelical denominations are considering this change as well. Research indicates why some churches want to give more power to leaders at the top.”
Jeff offers no proof ACGC is considering becoming more top-down in its approach to leadership, because there is none. The overall thrust of the proposed changes has been to define and uphold standards of denominational membership – just as we define and uphold standards of membership in our local congregations. He offers no examples of other denominations that are purportedly considering moving towards top-down leadership (which ACGC is not!), thereby depriving us of helpful points of comparison. He says, “research indicates” – what research? His research? He employs language that implies some authority for this analysis and yet offers no supporting evidence for his assertions.
“Why some evangelical churches want more “top‑down” leadership
1. They want things to run more smoothly
Some churches feel that too many people making decisions slows everything down. So, they put a few leaders in charge to make choices faster and avoid arguments.
2. They are losing members or feeling unsure about the future
When fewer people come to church, or when the church is going through big changes, leaders sometimes think stronger control will help keep the church steady and focused.
3. They want more “professional” leadership
Some churches want leaders who are trained and measured by clear goals. This can lead them to give more authority to pastors or staff who have special training.
4. They want everyone to teach the same things
If each local church decides everything on its own, they might start teaching different ideas. Some groups choose top‑down leadership, so all their churches stay on the same page.
5. They want to handle money and legal issues more easily
Having one main group in charge can make it simpler to deal with property, money, and legal rules. This isn’t about any one denomination—it’s just something many organizations think about.
Top‑down leadership might look neat and organized, but it can cause real problems — especially in churches and denominations who are traditionally congregational - that believe everyone in every congregation should listen to the Holy Spirit together and share responsibility.”
There is a subtle suggestion here that this list of motives (in part or in whole) stands behind the proposed changes (which again, is not a change to top-down leadership). Jeff offers no proof that these are in fact the motives behind the proposals; he is leaning on the power of suggestion. We are congregationalists, our denomination should remain congregationalist, and the proposals reflect that commitment. It is frankly offensive to insinuate that all those involved in bringing this proposal have intended otherwise and that we would neglect and thereby obstruct the operation of the Holy Spirit in and through the congregation, the Body of Christ.
“Possible Negative Results of Top‑Down Leadership
1. People in local churches lose their voice
If leaders far away make all the decisions, the people who actually live and serve in the church may feel ignored. They know their community best, but their ideas may not be heard. Over time, this makes people trust the leaders less.”
Again, it bears repeating, we are not proposing top-down leadership. Nothing that has been proposed alters the delegate representation of our churches. As we see in this very moment, big decisions must be decided by the delegate body; that will continue to be the case, just as it should be.
“2. People stop feeling like the church belongs to them
Churches grow strong when everyone helps and feels responsible. But if only a few leaders make all the choices, people may start waiting to be told what to do instead of using their own initiative and Spiritual gifts. The church becomes something done for them instead of with them.”
Again, not what has been proposed here.
“3. Power can be misused
When only a small group has all the power, it’s easier for things to go wrong. Even good leaders can become too controlling, and bad leaders can hurt people before anyone can stop them.”
Yes, and not what has been proposed here.
“4. Less honesty and openness
Top‑down systems often keep information in the hands of a few. Decisions might be made in private, and regular members may not know what’s going on or how to ask questions. This can make people feel confused, worried, or frustrated. “
Of course, and not what has happened or what has been proposed here.
“5. Slow response to real problems
Leaders who are far away may not understand what a local church is facing. When a problem comes up, the church might have to wait for approval from people who don’t really know the situation. The higher the hierarchy the slower we can expect any resolutions to happen.”
Absolutely, and not what has been proposed here.
“6. Everyone is pressured to think the same way
If one group decides what everyone must believe or do, churches can lose the special ways the Holy Spirit works in different places. People may feel forced to follow rules instead of listening to God together. Instead of merely accepting what the Bible teaches about Jesus being God’s only begotten Son, we must accept how the Council of Nicaea specifically defined what that means.”
I must stress that it is the delegate body, representing Advent Christian churches, that are making these decisions. Are there limits on how the Holy Spirit works in “special ways” in “different places”? Is it possible the Holy Spirit is telling churches in some places to embrace same-sex marriage? Is it possible the Holy Spirit is telling churches in other places that Jesus is not in fact fully God? Is the truth absolutely fluid, such that we would adhere to the popular mantra of our time in which you can have “your truth” and I can have “my truth”? If it is not, if the truth is something solid and defined, something that can be known, then we should be able to say what it is. To act otherwise implicitly suggests that the truth can be whatever one decides.
Let me be absolutely clear: no statement by any council holds any weight unless it aligns with the teaching of Scripture. Jeff, while I initially proposed a simple affirmation of a set of biblically orthodox creeds (including the Nicene), you and I agreed with the appointed Task Force to set these aside to instead articulate these core doctrines for ourselves as Advent Christians. Why are you now shrinking away from declaring biblical truth? We must be able to state the truths revealed in Scripture or else be sentenced to silence.
“7. People stop trusting their leaders
It’s easier to trust leaders you know personally. When decisions are made by people far away, members may feel disconnected or even upset. This can hurt relationships in the church. The more decisions are made by a committee outside our conference and region, the less we can trust that their motives align with ours.”
Proposals and recommendations might be made by boards and committees, but decisions are made by the delegate body – the representatives of the Advent Christian churches. Again, we are not moving towards top-down leadership.
“8. The church can forget its real mission
We currently see our mission as proclaiming the second coming. What will happen to us as a denomination when that mission is diluted to merely being ready for the second coming?”
No choice needs to be made between the two. Being ready for the second coming entails proclaiming the second coming; they are not at all juxtaposed.
“9. Churches can become victims of bureaucracy"
Church growth and church planting happen more readily when locals take the initiative and slow when centralized authority takes over.”
I absolutely believe grassroots church revitalization/planting efforts are great and probably best; that said, they are likely benefited from the aid of outside help. However, no one is proposing a centralized takeover or thrusting such aid upon anyone. While hopefully unintended, your depiction here grievously misrepresents our ongoing church planting efforts led by Adrian Dixon. Again, I will point out that an assertion is offered here under this overarching guise of “research” without any supporting evidence. Perhaps Jeff can offer such evidence – for now, I am calling out word play when I see it. No one should be swooned by mere tones of authority that are easily contrived.
“Conclusion
We as Advent Christians should think carefully before we change our denominational leadership structure. If we are going to allow a smaller group to address our concerns and make decisions for us as a denomination, we had better be absolutely convinced that this smaller group is listening to the voice of God and not just trying to make us into something that we are not. Thank you for your consideration.”
Advent Christians, my brothers and sisters, no one is making these big decisions for you and nothing that has been proposed is going to change that. Jeff’s account relies on innuendo, as made plain by the bare absence of any substantive engagement with what has actually been proposed.
In any case, the discussion continues! If you have questions about any of the proposals, I’m happy to answer them. While we might not agree on everything, please let us always be truthful and not foster rumors and conspiracy theories.
Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001, 2007, 2011, 2016 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.