The Fall Conference of the Members for Church Accountability (MCA) was held at Loma Linda, California, on the last Sabbath of October 2005. It was attended by about 100 persons, most from the Southern California area, but some from as far away as Colorado and Texas.

The purpose of the meeting was to address the roots of the stagnation of membership growth in the North American Adventist Church and the recurring financial misadventures in church administration.

After welcoming the group and outlining the scope of the meeting, George Grames, M.D., a local nephrologist and founding member of MCA, read from a recent issue of Christianity Today where John Ortberg, the teaching pastor at Menlo Park Presbyterian Church, described the absolute necessity of transparency and openness in financial and administrative matters for a church, so as to inspire the trust and credibility that is essential for parishioners to feel safe in bringing people to Christ.

He was followed by Dick Sheldon, M.D., a pulmonologist and intensive care specialist, who read from a speech by the president of Loma Linda University to the General Conference Session in St. Louis in July 2005, titled “Integrity, a 21st Century Imperative.” This discussion of the ideals that should underlie all secular and, especially, religious organizations presented a standard that may be more honored in proclamation than in practice.

Stewart Shankel, M.D., a nephrologist and medical educator, reviewed the advice of Ellen G. White on the goals of organization within the Adventist church. The prophet and early leader of the church was especially critical of church leaders who exercised “kingly power” by insisting on ultimate control. She felt that “every member should have a voice,” and that organization should not be a stumbling block to spreading the gospel. She indicated that businessmen should direct business, and ministers should be freed from business responsibilities, so that they could preach, pastor, and win souls.

In an illustrated lecture on organizational change, Bob Krone, emeritus professor of systems management at the University of Southern California and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the School of Business of La Sierra University, Riverside, California, provided “The Theory of Performance Improvement,” and outlined how to achieve the Pareto Optimum, where “many are better off and no one is worse off.” He illustrated how to get the information needed to achieve this goal by using the Ideas Unlimited Group Survey Method. He distributed a paper for his Target No. 1, which was: “If you had complete control of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, what would you change?”

By assuring anonymity (and confidentiality) he elicited responses, which clustered around making the organization more efficient by eliminating either Unions or local Conferences, and a redistribution of tithe income by allowing more discretionary use by the local congregation.

Larry Downing, the senior pastor of the White Memorial Church in Los Angeles, has worked with Bob Krone in seminars and teaching programs. Dr. Downing pointed out the primacy of the local parish. This was where decisions for Christ were made. This was where the money to support the organization came from. He pointed out the “backwardness” of some Conference officials who say, “We’re here to help you—now let us tell you what to do.” The concern of the local parish for “gospel” and of the administration for “doctrine” is illustrated by the pastors’ responses to Pacific Union Conference President Thomas Mostert’s recent book, Hidden Heresy?

Bob Krone then asked for the audience to respond to Target # 2: “What is the most important place for needed changes in the church?” There were 152 responses: Accountability in one form or another came up on 64 of the responses. Behavior Practices accounted for 24, and Changes in Church Structure, 23. Other areas accounted for the remaining responses.

Dr. Frank Knittel, former president of Southern Adventist University and former chairman of the La Sierra University English Department, as well as a successful businessman, has interacted closely with the Adventist Church administration and educational departments for more than 60 years. For the malaise he sees affecting the North American Division, which comprises seven percent of the Adventist membership while contributing more than half of its financial support, he had eight observations and suggested remedies:

1. Uncertainty as to which truths are essential to salvation. Clarify which are the most fundamental beliefs and emphasize these in evangelistic meetings.

2. Soggy and Unproductive Bureaucracy. Leaders have an obligation and duty for parishioners, who contribute the money, to know where “every penny” goes. Either the Union or the Conference layer should be eliminated, without moving any of these persons to other places within the organization.

3. Ballooning in every layer of administration. Committees are formed that diffuse responsibility. The General Conference (GC) president and all department heads should be responsible to laypersons who have access to all of the data.

4. Most GC department heads are “professional travelers” of minimal effectiveness but who incur inordinate expenses. He suggests eliminating most departments and reducing the remaining ones to a third of their present size.

5. “Shifting Incompetence” by moving ineffective personnel around rather than eliminating them. He would like to see “term limits” for all GC and Union officers.

6. Ethnically divisive churches expand bureaucracy and growth by membership transfers, but with few new members. He would like all churches to welcome all members, regardless of racial and ethnic backgrounds. He applauded his own local community in his early efforts to learn to speak English.

7. “Hemorrhaging” of young Adventists by making tuition in Adventist schools so “abhorrently expensive” for laity, while at the same time giving generous subsidies for clergy. He suggested allowing laity to use their tithe for tuition.

8. Too much local parish money goes to “higher administration.” He would like to set limits on this and have complete financial transparency.

Knittel feels that if local groups organized to bring a plan to the local Conference constituency meeting, it might have some chance of succeeding.

Ron Gladden, a graduate of Southern Adventist University, has been ministerial secretary of several conferences and was Church Planting Director of the North Pacific and Mid-America Unions until 2004. He is now the director of Mission Catalyst Network, a parallel ministry with headquarters in Vancouver, Washington. He emphasized that any successful state, business, or church is organized around “core values.” While there needs to be a supporting organization to advance the core values, there should never be any doubt as to the primary purpose of the organization.

With maturing of a Church organization there is an increasing tendency toward “Institutional Drift”, where the priority shifts from the “Spiritual” to the “Corporate.” He quoted Dr. Lyle Schaller who said (somewhat tongue-in-cheek, perhaps) that shrinking mainline Protestant churches had as their main, unspoken purpose “to give aging white men jobs.” He said that there was a further drift in importance from the “local church” to the “Conference.” He repeated that the pulpit and the baptistery are in the local church. There is a further drift from the “grandparental role” to the “parental role.” Parental control is proper for young, immature children, but grandparents are available for advice and support, while allowing independence of the maturing children.

Gladden reemphasized the concept that the “system determines the outcomes.” If the system doesn’t change, then the outcomes won’t change. He illustrated the constitutional inability of the United Methodist Church to change, with the result that it loses more than 200,000 members each year. He quoted an unnamed Adventist Church administrator who said that his denomination would change “when it becomes (financially) bankrupt.”

Gladden said that in order for the Church to be revitalized, it must: 1) Refocus everything on the mission; 2) Trust local pastors to make decisions; and 3) Move to a “grandparental” model. He concluded by referring to Matthew 11:12, where Jesus seems to suggest that his followers would take forceful measures to advance the kingdom of God.

A question-and-answer period followed, in which individuals related their personal feelings and directed some questions to the panelists. Most attendees agreed that the meeting was conducted in a good spirit and that while change in Church structure would be difficult, it was not impossible.

The Web site for the Members for Church Accountability is www.advmca.org. The Mission Catalyst Network Web site is www.missioncatalyst. org.

pp.6,7 adventist today | vol. 14 issue 1