I was told, in person, by a GC official this weekend--not naming names--that the meeting in 2010 will mostly focus on "reorganizing church structure," and that this is likely to eclipse other concerns delegates will want to bring to the GC's attention and issues that laypeople will hope to see discussed. In other words, we can anticipate a significant gap between concerns for structure and the point where "the rubber hits the road" (the daily lives and concerns of everyday church members). I’m glad that the official I was talking with recognizes the problem this distinction creates. At the same time, I was dismayed by this person's opinion that there may be little room to evolve a different scenario. It’s good that the question has been posed this far in the future.

I'll think about your second question.

Trisha,
That's a very helpful insight from the GC official. I, for one, am glad that there is hope on the horizon for reorganizing church structure. In North America, it really needs attention. I attended a conference constituency meeting this weekend where the conference treasurer did a breakdown on where tithe money goes. Under the current system 25% of every tithe dollar goes up to the union and GC (16% to the Division and GC, 9% to the Union). Then, in the money that stays at the local conference level, 9.2% is administrative cost. That is a very large portion of the tithe dollar going for administrative type functions. (I realize there is more than just administrative cost involved in what goes up. But a large portion of it is to support structure.

Perhaps the large portion of the money that goes up is why only 50% of church members pay tithe. Over the past few years, there was much talk about the decline in mission giving. Has anyone done any studies as to why people don't pay tithe? If the rate of tithe giving were higher, it would certainly help solve some of the local money problems. Because,
while the upper levels of the church seem to be flourishing, the conferences are laying off pastors and teachers. Some conferences have been staring bankruptcy in the face. And the colleges have also been struggling.

It is time for the lengthy discussions about structure that have taken place over the past couple of years to help produce results that make a real difference to how the money is spent, particularly in North America, since that is where the largest percentage of the money originates.

With that in mind, I think of two particular qualities for a president.
First, of course, a spiritually inspiring person who leads all to the feet of Jesus.
And secondly, someone who understands the vastly different needs of the church around the world and who can help empower the people to solve problems at the local level. That means someone who does not expect things to be done the same way everywhere around the world, and can help us build flexibility into the system.

I'm glad you shared this information, Bonnie. The second quality you indicated you want to see in a conference president bridges the multiple concerns nicely!

Bonnie,
The 9.2% of the 75% is less than 5 percent of the total and nearly all of that cost is the saleries of the local pastors and teachers.

It is true that we continue to subsidize the world church but the Foreign tithe numbers are going up and the conferences the divisions and GC support spend the lions share on their Pastors and teachers saleries too.

Unless one is a denominational employee (who is required to pay tithe to the conference), the members can either pay tithe to the local church, conference, or anywhere they choose. The church treasurer is bound NOT to disclose the amount and which are tithe-payers to ANYONE.
BTW, isn't a denominational employee's tithe no different than union dues which other employees must pay to guarantee their job?

I recall a long-time church treasurer who said he was once asked by a church board member as to the tithing status of a member, and he absolutely refused to reveal it, as he should. It is between the individual member's conscience as to the beneficiary of his tithe. That's the way it should be. Only the church treasurer, who yearly sends the necessary information for tax purposes to the member, should anyone else know. It's NB (Nobody's business).

A big challenge: articulating a vision of Adventism that compels Adventist witnessing in the variety of cultural contexts in which members exist.

A main characteristic: a Spirit-based creativity that inspires as many members as possible to turn Adventist beliefs into a habit or tool for action.

While challenges faced around the world differ, I agree that the largest global challenge facing Adventism is updating its organisational structures. I also agree with the suggestion that control of institutions should be, as much as possible, local.

The main characteristic I would like to see is someone who is able to make these organisational reforms while soothing intra-Adventist disagreement. Or, a bureaucrat not an ideologue.

In response to Elaine Nelson's comment (20 May 2008 at 2:17) about church treasurers not having to divulge personal tithe information to anyone, I recently discovered that church treasurers DO divulge tithers' names to pastors upon requested. My former pastor mentioned this from the pulpit one Sabbath during Divine Worship.

Since I would consider this a violation of my privacy, I'm now trying to decide whether to my tithe directly to the General Conference. The problem with that is projects within my local conference would then not benefit from any part my tithe dollar, but I am so disappointed with the political agendas of my local conference administrators regarding to pastoral assignments & re-assignments that I feel I have no other viable choice. Caught between a rock & a hard place regarding to which "storehouse" to return my tithes.

This may be obvious to you guys, but I'll ask anyway and risk looking silly:

What's the point of having an international meeting of clergy, administrators, and laity if the laity's concerns are not going to be tabled -- and everybody but the laity knows this ahead of time? Don't the clery already have their ministerial associations and meetings, and the administrators their annual councils? What do the laity have?

Sure, it's very nice to know, but it would be nicer still to change.