By George R. Knight (abstracted from his book Organizing to Beat the Devil, pages 178-181)

The plain fact is that the 1901/1903 reorganization is a unique governing system for a world church that has served the denomination well in propelling its outreach to the ends of the earth. It is not the basic structure itself that is problematic. Rather, the issue is whether the present structure is the most effective one that Adventism can develop for the efficient use of the church's financial and personnel resources as it seeks to complete its mission. It seems that the best option is not total rejection of the old but a combining of the best of the old with the most helpful of the new as the church, on the basis of biblical principles, modifies the essential core of its present organization for maximum missiological efficiency. In essence, that is what took place in 1901/1903. It was not revolution but a restructuring of the 1861/1863 system in order to meet better the needs of a changed church and world. That same approach is what is required as the denomination moves through the twenty-first century.

Toward a Modest Proposal

With those remarks in mind, I will hazard a few suggestions on a possible shape for Adventist Church structure for the twenty-first century. As you think about these suggestions, please keep a few key presuppositions in mind: (1) the reason for church organization is to facilitate worldwide mission; (2) any viable organization must be able to transcend the localism of congregationalism and at the same time avoid the crushing weight of overinstitutionalism; (3) an effective organization must be unified enough to focus its assets on "finishing the work" of the church yet flexible enough to let each sector of the world church employ those means that will be most effective in its field of responsibility.

One possible approach to a reformed Adventist church structure is a model consisting of three levels. Uniting the denomination would be the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in a trimmed-down state; while the General Conference would be largely a coordinating, advising, and facilitating body, it would also have a part in providing general guidelines for a world church seeking to capture the foremost advantages of both unity and diversity.

The second level of structure might consist of regional divisions of the church, somewhat equivalent to today's world divisions. This second level of administration would not only perform the function of the current divisions but would also assume many of the coordinating and supporting tasks presently handled by the union conferences. The number of divisions might be raised to about 20 from the current 12, in order to better serve units of the world church with their own unique needs.

The third level of church structure would be what we can think of as regional administrative conferences. Here is where the most radical reconstruction is necessary. Let me illustrate by citing the North American experience. North Americans have argued for years as to whether it would be best to get rid of or combine some of their 58 local conferences or to disband their 9 union conferences. The best solution might be to do away with both levels, creating in their wake some 20 regional administrative units on one level that could serve constituencies that have moved out of the horse-and-buggy era and now have access to modern means of communication and transportation.

Similar scenarios could work for the other world divisions. Such a move would put more Adventist tithe dollars back into the work of 'real ministry' and would redeploy large numbers of personnel. Many believe that the tithe has too long subsidized a massive 'bureaucratic industry'. The church might actually be more effective in accomplishing its mission if it spent no more than 20 to 30 percent of present administrative expenditures on bureaucracy and bureaucratic real estate and support structures. Just think of what such changes would mean for ministry and mission. They could accomplish more than all the plans developed by people behind desks in the next hundred years.

Why, you may be thinking as you look at the preceding proposal, are there three levels rather than two or four? Four is too many, in the sense that such a model is both needlessly expensive and redundant. On the other hand, two levels is too few, in the sense that such an arrangement leads to the one-person or 'kingly power' dilemma that had threatened Adventism during the 1890s and has been reflected by Roman Catholicism across the centuries. The third or intermediate level (i.e., divisions) allows both for the diffusion of authority and for a coordinating body for each of the major sectors of the denomination.

Along another line, it seems that the divisions would be better as divisions of the General Conference rather than as division conferences. The church's experience with Conradi early in the twentieth century highlighted the possibility of a strong personality leading an entire division out of the denomination. The division system in its election process provides important checks and balances that have implications for both worldwide unity and regional flexibility in the sense that division officers are nominated by a committee of a largely regional nature, yet, on the other hand, delegates from all sectors of the world church must approve that nomination.

Having made such a proposal, I should point out that it is merely a suggestion for discussion's sake. No one person really knows what is best or what would be most missiologically efficient and effective. Any restructuring in the future will benefit from (1) the collective wisdom of the worldwide church, (2) an understanding of inspired principles of ecciesiology, and (3) a good grasp of Seventh-day Adventist organizational history.

In closing, we should remember that neither organization in 1861/1863 or reorganization in 1901/1903 came easy. Initial organization occurred only after a decade of struggle, and reorganization took place only after 15 years of turmoil.

Studying those eras historically has led me to the hypothesis that Adventism makes significant structural changes only when it is on the verge of financial disaster and organizational dysfunctionality. Some believe we are approaching such a crisis. But next time organizational restructuring will be much more difficult than it was in 1901/1903 with the denomination's largely North American membership of 78,000. The stakes are higher and the complications more complex in an international church of nearly 12,000,000 members and rapidly increasing.

On the other hand, even though the challenges facing any reorganization are of stupendous proportions, so is the necessity. The time to dream dreams and make significant change is now. Change will come. The only questions are who will control that change and will it be toward more functionality or less in terms of Adventism's mission? It is wiser to take charge of the transformation process than it is to just let it happen. Perhaps the greatest question facing Adventism in the next decade is whether significant change will come about by accident or by Christian planning and sanctified action. 

From George R. Knight, Organizing to Beat the Devil, Review and Herald, Hagerstown, 2001. Dr. George R. Knight is Professor of Church History at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, in Berrien Springs, Mich.