The Seventh-day Adventist Church desperately needs courageous leaders with a vision to reform and consolidate our present sprawling administrative structure. Our present structure was set up to deal with conditions of a century ago but is outmoded today. Social theorist Max Weber once noted that bureaucracies typically hold self-preservation as their primary value, and thus are resistant to change. But now the church has a mission that goes far beyond the preservation of outmoded institutions; we need to concentrate on how to use our scarce resources to get the job done for God.

As a first example of redundancy, I would point to the union conferences, especially in the United States. In the days of slow travel and communication the church needed administrative centers that would allow them to keep in touch with regional problems. Today, however, with the vast resources of air travel, fast electronic communication and speedy methods of delivering messages and materials, we no longer need the elaborate buildings and staffing represented in the system of union conferences. They absorb much of the tithe money contributed by local church members, and their presidents hold great power over local jurisdictions. They are unnecessary and a waste of money and manpower. Money saved by eliminating this duplication of administration and services could be put to much better uses. Local conferences could be redesigned to take care of much that the unions now do. An increasing number of Adventists are following the example of Ellen White when she selected the places to which she would send her gifts.

As a second example, one that is tied to the union conferences, I would point to the church's many small colleges and universities in America. In the beginning each union conference sponsored a college, sometimes more than one. So even now the fate of each is tied to that of the other. It is unlikely that any union conference president would vote to eliminate a school in his own territory.

I owe much to Adventist education, having gone through the system, including medical school. I took my postgraduate training in surgery elsewhere. I have become especially interested in our higher educational system since retiring and being more involved in business and as a donor. But I still question: Are we as a church getting all we should out of our investment in schools? Are we utilizing our constituents' money in the best way with our present system?

Some years ago at an Adventist Forum retreat in San Diego, Frank Knittle gave a talk outlining how consolidation of our 14 colleges and universities into one or two would benefit the church. Nothing came of his recommendations. They were timely then and more so now. The Mormon church in North America has more members than we have, and they have it right with only one large university. They retain students in their church as well as we do. ?

If we could consolidate our colleges and universities into a few large schools, we could fund these better, get more recognition from the public, and become more eligible for grants and gifts from agencies and donors. We would also be able to attract and pay for more qualified teachers, especially those who are research-minded. They in turn could qualify for more grant money. I would recommend that, at the most, we should have one university besides Loma Linda University on the west coast and another on the east coast or in the midwest. Such a west coast institution could easily accommodate the 5,000 to 6,000 students enrolled in the present three western colleges, and the same would be true of an eastern school. When we sold the real estate and other assets of these schools we could have enough to build a really fine campus, or upgrade an existing one if that were the choice. Think what could be accomplished in better buildings, research laboratories, and endowments for students and professors.

Think of the money that would be saved by avoiding duplication of administrative offices and departments. There would still be about the same need for teachers, and they could be better paid, especially specialists in research. It would provide for additional majors such as bioengineering, a promising new field for which much grant money is available. Other possibilities not now available include drama and good museum programs.

Would such a move be attractive to students? I think so. Some people say we would lose students because they would not move out of their home area. However, in reality students move all over the world to go to school. Most are happy to get away from their home area. There is no evidence I know of that location of a college has anything to do with students maintaining their allegiance to the church. A substantial number of Adventist students go to other schools than Adventist ones.

A principal problem with effecting the change will be convincing local college boards and constituencies that the change would be good, for they now come together and make the best efforts they can to float enough money to keep their schools open. Meanwhile the schools remain underfunded and struggling. They are often kept open by one or two wealthy supporters who stipulate, "Do as I say, or else I will withdraw my support". Because of underfunding, most of our colleges operate on the lower edge, rather than at the top. To accomplish this change of mind, strong and enthusiastic leaders would be needed.

Selecting the location of the new, bigger school would also be a challenge. Although I am an alumnus of La Sierra University, I would support the appointment of an independent research group to determine which campuses would close and which stay. This group of business and educational leaders should not be alumni and possibly not even Adventists. One cannot be sentimental over what is best for the educational and investment community.

I do believe that at present LSU is in the best financial position and location for consolidating the west coast schools. Whatever campus is chosen, it should have a close affiliation with LLU to support and coordinate programs such as bioengineering research, but at the same time it should maintain its financial independence.

How can our church make these changes happen? We have been called upon to be the head and not the tail of progress in education and evangelism. We are supposed to be efficient, wise, and business-oriented and to make the best use of our resources. This is also part of the gospel message. At the very least, the General Conference leadership would need to lend its official support, and they might even appoint something like a Five-Star General with the authority to get the process moving. If they simply appoint another committee to 'study it', nothing will ever happen.

Will we do it now? The time is ripe, and the present schools are trying to add to their meager facilities. From what I have observed, a larger school or two schools would experience financial support from donors far in excess of what we now get; we have only started to tap the pool of potential donors.

Again, are we using the Lord's resources properly? Are we occupying till he comes? We have been told to be leaders. Can we rise to the occasion? 

Thaine Price, MD.,is a retired surgeon living in Southern California.

Email: tbprice@worldnet.att.net.