We had the privilege of attending the World Congress in St. Louis, Missouri. On this occasion, we will share our impression of what this congress was like; an impression that we have categorized as the good, the bad, and the ugly. After sharing the good feelings we took away from the congress, we will proceed to point out the bad and ugly perceptions, not with the purpose of being negative, but rather to provide constructive criticism that could be useful for future congresses. To begin with, we must confess that after having participated in three congresses in the past, on this one; we couldn’t help but feel the beautiful sense of belonging that we experienced, because we met acquaintances and friends whom we hadn’t seen in a while, as well as strangers who radiated a spirit of brotherhood when we greeted each other, as well as with others, with whom we prayed in groups on different occasions, each in their own language. Among the strangers, we were able to strike up a conversation with two compatriots, one of whom enthusiastically told us that, after the closing of the congress, she would be traveling with her husband to the Amazon to serve for a while as volunteer missionaries. We also had the privilege of befriending a kind and helpful couple, with whom we shared pleasant moments and a farewell lunch. We cannot fail to mention the rewarding visit to the exhibition hall, where we found pavilions of our main publishing houses; hospitals and medical care centers; universities and schools; self-supporting institutions; philanthropic aid institutions; and Unions and Divisions that we have around the world, which shows that we are a well-organized and structured denomination. Regarding the bad, we will limit ourselves to sharing the valuable contributions of two delegates, who, due to time constraints, were only listened to and thanked, before continuing with the scheduled agenda. However, it is important to reconsider them in order to implement them in future congresses. The first contribution was from a European delegate, before voting in bloc for the presidents of the thirteen divisions into which the church is divided. The delegate requested more information on the individuals proposed for the mentioned positions, in order to have an idea of who the persons were that they were being asked to vote for. The previous suggestion was reasonable, so that the vote holds some value when electing any leader; especially when in some cases they come from distant regions. It makes no sense for a delegate from the Magallanes Region in the southern part of Chile to vote in favor or against a proposed leader from the Euro-Asian Division – which includes Russia – in the northern part of Asia, whom they do not know. That vote has no practical value, because it remains a nominal vote that decides nothing. It was striking that, when tallying the votes after each election, between five and ten percent of votes against the proposed individuals were reported. That small percentage may have greater value, as it is a vote based on knowledge, unlike the remaining 90% who likely voted blindly. What can we learn from the proposal of the European delegate? That it is not correct, neither parliamentary nor ethical, for us to continue with our traditional way of choosing our regional leaders. That was valid a century and a half ago, when everyone knew each other, but not in a global church of the 21st century. At this point, it is important to mention another proposal from a delegate who suggested voting individually, for each proposed regional president and not in bloc, as was ultimately done. It is understandable that, due to time constraints, that motion was not considered; but it would be healthy to consider it for future world congresses. One of the priorities of each congress every five years should be to review and evaluate the functioning and administration of leaders in each division, either to ratify them or appoint their replacements. Something that should concern us in our world congresses is the lack of representative lay participation, because the majority of delegates are denomination employees, who end up being committed to higher-ranking leaders who proposed them – who are also employees – and with little or no commitment to the church base, which is limited to complying with directives, often divorced from the reality lived in their regions. An example of this is the model of small congregations in Latin America, which may work in other more supportive cultures, but have less applicability in a more independent society like Western ones. On the other hand, we must not forget that within our membership there are individuals with better educational background and higher professional capacities than most of our pastors. It is true that our organization has promoted professionalism and educational advancement among our workers, with master’s and doctorate degrees, but it is also true that in most cases, those titles have little practical applicability, and in others, they only serve to improve the curriculum vitae. At this congress, I was surprised to discover that a delegate was allowed to invite three family members to the congress, with all expenses paid by the church; a measure that does not look very good. At that moment, it crossed my mind that our denomination should invite a lay delegate as a counterpart to each church-employed delegate with voice and vote and all expenses paid, so that our world congresses are truly representative, including as delegates representatives of our membership, which ultimately financially supports our denomination. The aforementioned measure would help ensure that the decisions we make are more objective and practical when implemented by those who will carry them out, who for now simply follow instructions. Another benefit is that when choosing new leaders at any level, the chosen ones feel a greater commitment to the lay leaders who participated in their election, and they are compelled to be more effective, as their continuity depends on this. Let us not forget that being a religious organization does not exempt us from the responsibility of being as efficient as any for-profit company, which must objectively account for its decisions and actions to achieve its goals. As in all things, good intentions are not enough. To be continued. Blessings.”
Comments