Reorganization: A Panacea for Denominational Woes?

One of the substantial items before the 2026 General Conference delegate body is the question of reorganization. At the 2023 General Conference people expressed concerns about the current structure with its four layers: local church, conference, region, and general conference. Leadership is stretched thin, and a restructuring would ease the strain on leadership. Could we reduce the layers and ease the strain?

We now have a proposal from the task force on reorganization. Ironically, the proposal, which when coupled with establishing a doctrinal test for ordination, will on the one hand reduce the number of ordained ministers as well as add another administrative layer to the denominational structure.

To understand our current options, I believe it is valuable to review our history. How did we form our current structure? What were our previous attempts to reorganize? And what were the results?

Denominational Formation: Form Follows Function

The early Advent Christians followed the anti-sectarian sentiment of the Millerite movement. The denominations of the day strongly opposed the second advent message and even more so the denomination’s promotion of its distinctive doctrines. These early leaders distrusted organizations which imposed their will on local churches and in response built structures to guarantee the independence of the local congregations. This strong anti-denominational sentiment can be seen in the formation of the first denominational structure.

The first denominational structures flowed from the need for fellowship and cooperation in evangelism. The results were state conferences and campmeetings. These became the foundation for the formation of the denominational structure. What became the General Conference and the regions adapted the delegate structure developed by these local organizations.

What united the Millerites and the early Advent Christians was the proclamation of the message of the soon return of Christ. As an outgrowth of the Millerite movement, the Advent Christian Church developed its first structure around that function. We formed a publication society. Since the Millerites proclaimed the message through the printed word, so did the Advent Christians. The first name was “Christian Publication Society” which later changed to “Advent Christian Publication Society.” To support the publishing society, the Advent Christian Association was formed. This developed into the General Conference.

What’s in a name? The anti-sectarian sentiment felt that there should be no modifiers for Christian. Some early Advent Christian leaders denied that we’d formed a denomination. Leaders like H. L. and Harriet Hastings, and Miles Grant believed all we offered was a publications society. Harriet Hastings, in her book, Pebbles From the Path of a Pilgrim, denied she and her husband ever were part of a denomination. That is despite the fact that H. L. Hastings was the first president of the denomination. When they realized the Advent Christians were becoming a denomination, the Hastings eventually left the denomination and began an independent publishing house. when it became to remain independent of a denominational structure.

So committed were the early Advent Christians to publishing their message, they formed three additional publishing houses. One each in the Midwest, West Coast, and the South. Out of these publication societies, the regional structures developed. Some felt the interests of these organizations were too localized and lacked concern for national issues.

After the Civil War Advent Christians became concerned for the spiritual and physical conditions of the freed slaves. In response they formed a structure to meet those needs. Thus the American Advent Mission Society came into existence. In the 1890s, under the leadership of F. L. Piper the focus shifted to international missions and the society founded the mission work in China. Also during the 1890s women in the denomination formed the Women’s Home and Foreign Mission Society and by the mid-1910s assumed the administration and support of the mission work in India.

We see again the function of international missions preceded the structure of the mission societies.

This process was replicated for other issues. The Midwest publication society saw the need for trained clergy and laity and formed what eventually became Aurora University. In New England the same need led to the founding of what became Berkshire Christian College.

Seeing the need for assistance for retired ministers who lived in poverty, Advent Christian leaders in both Florida and New England founded Advent Christian Village and Vernon Homes (now Retirement Communities).

The needs for united action on Christian education, youth work, minister’s retirement funding, and the promotion of tithing all generated independent boards, each committed to accomplishing specific functions.

The Forward Movement

The core motivations included a desire to revitalize the spiritual zeal of the denomination, unify the appeals for finances by the independent boards, and equalize the growth of the various ministries of the denomination. Of particular note was the incredible growth of the missionary sending organizations which had grown from zero missionaries in 1890 to a total of 21 missionaries in 1920 (14 in China and 7 in India). The emotional appeal to bring the gospel to the “heathen” seemed to some a disproportionate advantage for the missionary sending organizations. 

The Forward Movement developed an allocation system in which monies were to be collected by General Conference and disbursed on a set percentage according to the needs of the receiving organizations. Theoretically, this seemed to be a much more efficient and equitable arrangement. In practice, it was a financial disaster. Within a year, receipts dropped precipitously. Part of the cause was that once implemented, the number of people directly involved in fundraising dropped from about ten to one: Lester Reynolds, the man charged with implementing the Forward Movement. A second major detraction was the independent-minded givers did not appreciate being told where their money had to go. Not only did some people have their favorite boards, others had boards they did not want to support.

The resulting decrease in receipts and allocations caused the independent boards to request exemptions to the “no separate appeals” policy, and multiple requests for emergency support came to the denomination. Perhaps, though, what signaled the end of the first attempt at reorganization was Lester Reynolds’ death. The stress of administering the program, which did not reach its goal, proved too much for Lester’s constitution, and he suffered a physical breakdown and death.

The result of the first attempted reorganization was a weakening of all the cooperating societies’ financial base prior to the international disaster of the Great Depression. It is evidence of God’s grace that any of these organizations survived. 

United Ministries

The second reorganization program spanned three decades (from 1950 through 1980) and formally began as the United Operating Budget (UOB) and later reframed as United Ministries. David A. Dean in an unpublished paper (1970) summarized the arguments in favor of its adoption. Among those are:

1.)            The former way of fund-raising led to competition amongst the agencies: UOB will have all-for-one and one-for-all.

…

3.)     Local churches are besieged by too many people asking for money; under UOB, agencies will not make individual appeals.

4.)     Some denominational agencies are raising too much money, and thus preventing others from growing. The larger agencies (e.g., foreign missions) must be slowed down so that others may grow.

The first aspect of the reorganization involved the publication societies. In 1950 there were two weekly and three monthly publications: The World’s Crisis (East), Messiah’s Advocate (West), The Appalachian Advent Christian, The Present Truth Messenger, and Advent Christian Missions. The regional papers found their subscriptions declining and could not sustain operations. First, the Messiah’s Advocate merged with the Crisis, and by the mid-1950s, the publications merged into the Advent Christian Witness with shared editorial management. Although the Present Truth Messenger, which functioned as the promotional vehicle for the Advent Christian Village, remained operational until the late 1970s when it ceased separate publications. The final phase of mergers came in 1980 when the Missions magazine combined into the Witness which became the Advent Christian Witness to the World.

The lesson learned from the Forward Movement was that as long as the cooperating societies’ boards remained independent, a unified, efficient structure would be impossible. 

Far more significant was the decision to transition Advent Christian Publications from an independent board into a division of the Advent Christian General Conference and under the supervision of the denomination’s executive council. Thus, after 100 years, the organization which formed to support Advent Christian Publications reversed the roles, and the publication endeavors became the support for the Advent Christian General Conference. 

The next phase of the reorganization involved the mission organizations. In the early 1960s, the WH&FMS and the AAMS merged into one governing body, with the administration of the mission fields coming under the AAMS. Then, by the mid-1970s, the missions enterprise of the Advent Christian denomination, like Advent Christian Publications, became a division of the General Conference.

A similar transition occurred with the Christian Education and Youth boards, with each becoming a department of the General Conference. 

Along with these structural changes, the funding for the five regions became linked to the churches’ giving to the General Conference, with a percentage going to the operating costs of the regions. 

What then were the results of this organizational transition? First, the multiple and competing fundraising requests virtually vanished. All fundraising comes from the General Conference. Thus, the primary goal of eliminating multiple appeals was accomplished as far as it was under the control of the General Conference. The two educational institutions and social service agencies were outside the United Ministries’ scope, and since they had cultivated targeted supporters, they were not as active in direct appeals as the other boards had been.

What were the results in the departments continuing the ministries of the previously independent boards?

Publications

In 1950 there were three publications producing monthly papers and two producing weekly. That is 140 printed publications a year. Starting in the 1980s, the one remaining publication, Advent Christian Witness, began reducing the number of issues, first to 11, then to 6, and today issues a quarterly magazine. There is a weekly e-new letter which provides updates, but that does not substantially lessen the diminished publication impact. The publication of books has been stable for years, and since 2010, three independent Advent Christian publishers: Robert Copeland, Jefferson Vann, and Himes Publications, have each produced more books than the General Conference has since 2000. Publications, which was the founding impetus for our denomination, have become in comparison a minor aspect of denominational life. 

World Missions 

After World War II, evangelical missions enterprises experienced substantial growth. The Advent Christian Denomination rode the wave of missionary zeal. Although we had to withdraw our missionary presence in China, we established missionary cohorts of approximately ten missionaries each in Japan and the Philippines, with a smaller number in Mexico. There we planted churches and in Japan and the Philippines established conferences which still operate. Our missionaries in India established two conferences. At its peak the Advent Christian missionary force exceeded thirty. This is a remarkable number with the size of the denomination. The mission endeavors represent the most effective outreach program of the denomination in the last hundred years and resulted in the only new conferences established by our denomination.

Although there are many factors which have contributed to the ebb in overall evangelical missionary efforts, the reorganization provided an additional restraint. The Department of World Missions’ budget was now part of the overall budget. To send new personnel required a proportional increase in the overall income of the denomination. Missionary recruitment failed to keep pace with retirement and overall missionary departures from the fields. The emphasis of the department transitioned from sending missionaries to supporting national organizations, a process Advent Christian Missions had used in Japan before World War II and in Malaysia. Currently, no career Advent Christian missionaries are working in another culture.   

The two other boards incorporated into the General Conference–Christian Education and Youth–are no longer functioning as separate departments with dedicated administrators. 

Looking at the ministries combined into the General Conference in the last reorganization, we see that although the financial structure has become more efficient and streamlined, the ministries themselves have all become less effective than prior to the reorganization. Should not the goal of reorganization be both efficiency and effectiveness?

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.

Evaluation of Reorganization Proposal

It is ironic that among the rationales for another round of reorganization are that there are too many organizations appealing for money and that missions have a disproportionate allotment. These are the same arguments presented in the prior two pushes for reorganization. But it is simply not the case. The appeals for financial support come from: the local church, the conference/camps, and the General Conference. The issue is not appeals, but relevance and passion. People will give to causes that align with the local church’s goals and passions.

As far as missions go, I am convinced that no one should be made to feel guilty about supporting the Great Commission and spending resources to make disciples of all nations. The question to ask is not, “Why are we spending so much on missions?” The core question we should ask is “Why aren’t we making disciples here in North America?”

One of the core flaws of the reorganization proposal is the misplaced assumption about the problem. The proposal assumes that the tri-levels of independent governance—conference, region, and General Conference (there are actually four levels as the foundational level is the local church) are the problem. They compete for a depleting leadership pool and have conflicting priorities. Therefore, General Conference must step in and provide standardization of authority and practices.

This is not the core problem we, as a denomination, face. We lack a clear, motivating, and outward-focused function (or mission) and therefore have no unifying principle for joint action. The founding function throughout the nineteenth century was publishing the message of Christ’s return and our denominational distinctives. We formed four publishing societies, out of which developed four of the five regions and one educational institution (the Midwest publication society founded what became Aurora College/University).

During the first three quarters of the twentieth century our unifying function was the sending of missionaries. Our denomination’s missionaries established conferences in China, India, Japan, the Philippines, and Mexico. The political situation ended our missionary presence in China, and our conference in Mexico did not persist. The other conferences remain, and the India and Philippine conferences are among the largest conferences in the world.

Since the reorganization efforts of the 1950s through the 1970s, our focus has been on the form and not the function. The recent efforts in church planting could become a unifying function, but those efforts are in the early stages.

What the proposed reorganization offers as a unifying function is imposing doctrinal uniformity across the denomination and implementing a system in which the General Conference determines the practices of local churches, conferences, and regions. From the pre-General Conference discussion, this is not a unifying function.

Another flaw of the reorganization is an inversion in the assumption of the priority of the General Conference in relationship to the local church. When the reorganization proposal lists criteria (one of which is financial support of General Conference) for a church to be in good standing, that reflects an assumption that the local churches exist to support General Conference. That is a reversal of the situation. The General Conference exists to benefit the local church.

This reflects a troubling concern. If the trend of recent General Conference Sessions holds, over half of the Advent Christian Churches will not send delegates. This indicates that these churches do not feel the General Conference adds enough value to their existence to warrant participation. Our response should not be to demand their compliance, but to face the harder question of how we can better serve and benefit the churches so that they will want to participate fully in General Conference.

Another inadequacy of the proposed reorganization is that it does not address the leadership issue. When the issue of reorganization was presented in the 2023 General Conference the concern was how the multiple levels of governance (church, conference, region, and General Conference) strained our limited leadership pool. But what does this proposal present? An additional level of governance! Instead of reducing the leadership demands, it increases it. This is not a reorganization to produce efficiency; it is to produce enforcement and police the denomination into compliance with the directives of the General Conference Delegate body. And what is this Ministerial Committee tasked with doing? Eliminating doctrinally deficient leadership and churches from the denomination, thus further diminishing the leadership pool.

Another concern is the impetus to eliminate conferences with fewer than six churches. Although proponents have affirmed that the proposal applies to new conferences only, (does anyone remember when the last new conference in North America was formed?), the proposed by-laws do not contain any grandfathering feature for existing conferences. The supporting documentation suggests that these conferences either merge or disband. Four out of five of the Central Region’s conferences do not qualify and theoretically would all be affected. Currently, the geographic expanse, for example, the Prairie States conference extends from central Michigan, all of Indiana and Illinois, and to Memphis, Tennessee. This rivals the geographic size of some East Coast regions. Without some guarantee within the text of the by-laws, what guarantee do small conferences have that the General Conference won’t eventually demand their dissolution?

Perhaps the greatest deficiency in the proposal stems from the very issue the proposal is intended to remedy: the denomination has multiple levels of independent, autonomous governance. The local church, conference, region, and General Conference are independent. As a result, the General Conference delegate body has no authority to unilaterally impose its will upon the other levels of governance. Theoretically, and I cannot conceive of a valid rationale, a church or conference could cede that authority to General Conference, but General Conference cannot impose its authority upon the local church or conference or region.

Imposing a new compliance vehicle is unprecedented in denominational life. To use the name ministerial committee to give a committee authority over local churches, conferences, and regions is a drastic overreach. General Conference has never decided which churches or conferences are Advent Christian. Churches formed conferences, and conferences formed the regions. The only groups approved by General Conference itself are the associate members, which are organizations that are not churches or conferences.

All other levels of governance, the local church, the conferences and the regions, are subject to their legal governance documents: their own constitution and by-laws. Two examples of overreach are grounded in this independence. This proposed reorganization dictates a role for regional superintendents. Let’s remember that the superintendents are employees of the regions and responsible to regional boards who are responsible to implement the region’s constitution and by-laws and articulate the job descriptions. The General Conference has no right to dictate any aspect of the superintendent’s job description.

The proposed reorganization requires that for a ministerial committee to be legitimate, it must be composed of at least three ordained ministers. The conferences are bound by their constitution and by-laws, not by the General Conference.

I understand the deep concern that provided the impetus for this proposal, but the result is a drastic overreach of General Conference authority. It is precisely this overreach that impelled the founders of our denomination to implement the multi-layered autonomous levels of governance. It also provides a strong rationale to decline ratification of the proposed revisions to the General Conference By-Laws.