In the previous article, we considered the request of a European delegate to have more information about the candidates for leaders of the thirteen Divisions worldwide, in order to have an idea of who are the people for whom you are requesting to vote. The previous request highlights that our procedure for selecting regional leaders is obsolete for a global church in the 21st century, which obliges us to review it for improvement. A more realistic, practical, and democratic alternative would be to choose regional leaders every five years at a congress in each Division, with the exclusive participation of delegates from that region, who have the privilege and responsibility to choose their leaders.
We also addressed the urgent need to have more representative World Congresses, with delegates from the membership with all expenses paid, as a counterpart to the delegates who are church employees, so that our decisions are more democratic and accurate, by having the participation of those who, whether one likes it or not, are the ones financially sustaining this movement and funding each World Congress.
The second participation was from a delegate of the North American Division, who commented that we had spent most of the last three days – from Sunday to Tuesday – ONLY REVIEWING WORDS from the Church Manual, indicating that said review had been more about form than substance, when more important issues could have been addressed.
The worrisome aspect of the above is that during that time, not even 60% of what was planned to review of said manual was covered, so the rest of the work was passed on to the Church Manual Committee, where delegates could go to present their suggestions; something that should have been done from the beginning.
The timely second participation revealed the inadequate planning of the congress organizers, which seemed to be aimed at taking up most of the congress time supposedly reviewing the Church Manual, rather than solving a real problem. In future congresses, we could dedicate time to formulate and present work plans for each Division, and reports on the level of implementation achieved by each region in the elapsed period, which would be more interesting for everyone, both world administrators, delegates, and the public attending the congress; than a review of little relevance of the church manual, which the Church Manual Committee would be in charge of, considering the delegates’ suggestions; bringing to the plenary session to review the new important suggestions that may arise.
The problem with adapting the above measure is that, as a church, we have not seen the importance of medium or five-year planning, much less the operational planning done every year, which generates commitments and responsibilities that must be fulfilled within a certain timeframe. Our plans, usually, are just plans of good intentions that do not take us very far. An example of the above is that our pastors do not have a working schedule to comply with, nor a plan to develop, with quantifiable objectives and goals to achieve, with their respective activity and results indicators and a strategy to follow.
We could argue that they dedicate time to prepare their sermons, but that time should also be part of a work plan. I remember that a few years ago, a prestigious theology professor from one of our main universities told me: that our pastors come out of seminaries believing they know everything, and that in their work trajectory they do not evolve; they continue repeating what they learned in the seminary. That their theological work is limited to preparing a series of sermons, which they repeat in each district they are assigned to. That is one of the reasons for our lack of growth as a church, and the tendency to disappear in developed countries. An example of the above is that the church I have attended for the last fourteen years has not grown, and we continue to be almost the same as when I arrived.
To some extent, the above is due to the lack of vocation in the new generations, but more than anything to the lack of operational planning that generates a sense of urgency, indicating what must be done in a certain time frame to achieve the proposed goals. The blame is not entirely on our pastors, who see a theological career as just another profession; but on those who have the responsibility to lead and organize the church at all levels. God is a God of order, and this extends to what we do for Him, as we find recorded in the biblical account of someone wanting to build; but before that, they must make preparations or plans so that construction can reach a happy ending. By planning, we do not remove the place of the Holy Spirit in our daily work of fulfilling the mission, but we order our steps to do it better.
We cannot finish this section without recognizing that we have few, but exceptional pastors dedicated to preaching the gospel, who are an inspiration to their congregations. During the congress, we were struck by hearing phrases like the following in the sermons: There is no time to get into controversies, it is time to focus on the Mission; or, We should not focus on the problems within the church, because if we do, we become a problem. These statements are similar to what I heard in a sermon at one of our universities, from a visitor of the General Conference, who among other things said: That we should not focus on the problems within the church, but focus on the Mission, and then the problems will disappear. We should not give importance to the doubts that assail us, because if we focus on the Mission, the doubts will disappear. The previous statements are half-truths, because controversies, problems, and doubts will not disappear if we focus on the Mission. We must have the desire and firmness to fulfill our mission, but also the courage to recognize that controversies, problems, and doubts do not arise on their own and we must seek a reasonable explanation for them.
It is worrying that, in a way, we are being invited to not think and accept everything without reflecting or analyzing what we are told; which is not characteristic of healthy children of God who have the right to exercise their free will to accept or reject any teaching presented to them, especially in such a sensitive area as the spiritual. On the other hand, the Great Commission invites us to teach all the things that the Lord Jesus HAD COMMANDED, but not beliefs that are the result of our assumptions, especially in the prophetic area. We can perfectly focus on fulfilling the Great Commission, without ceasing to question the prophetic interpretations that have no biblical or historical basis, and that should not be controversial or problematic; but something that should encourage us to review what we have believed, and if necessary, proceed to an honorable rectification. Blessings.”
Comments