In this article I distinguish between “Church” with “C” and “church” with small “c.” Recently, a committee composed of several Seventh-day Adventist church employees—some from the General Conference and some from academia—was reviewing various agenda items when the chair noted that the General Conference had hired an individual to serve as “CIO”—Chief Information Officer. Questions were immediately raised: Why is the Church using business titles such as “Chief Financial Officer”? Why the emphasis on “Chief”? Aren’t we becoming more like a business when we use business titles and terms?

The answer to the easiest part of the question—why treasurers are now called CFOs—is fairly straightforward. There was a desire to create an understanding of what the treasurer of a conference, union, or division really does. The word “treasurer” implies a role to care for money in an accounting manner, but a treasurer isn’t just an accountant. The actual function of this role is much larger than recording money transactions, and the name change was an attempt to better identify what that position requires.

However, this is not to imply that language doesn’t matter. Some authors have noted that

the concept of making the secretary or treasurer vice presidents, and thus simply extensions of the president’s office, runs counter to the Adventist model of church government with its inbuilt distributed responsibility.¹

The president is “first among equals” and all three officers have their own constituency mandate. All three are elected by the same constituency that elected the president.

The authority of the officers as a group is the combined authority of the president, secretary, and treasurer…The officers have a management function, supported by the department directors, and supervise executive implementation of the actions of the (executive) committee.²

Thus, the secretary and the treasurer are not extensions of the president, not directly accountable to him or her—as the term “vice president” would suggest. Their roles are ones of cooperation, not subordination.

But the committee’s question remains. Does the use of the language “Chief Information Officer” and “Chief Financial Officer” imply that these individuals are rulers? Does it mean that the church is a business and not a spiritual organization?

I propose that in fact, the church is both.

The Church and the church

In the drawing at the end of this article, the large box represents the Church (capital “C”) that Ellen G. White was referring to when she said, “Nothing else in this world is so dear to God as His church.”³

Inside the large box is a smaller box. This represents the church (small “c”)—the Adventist church organization—comprising the General Conference, divisions, unions, and conferences, as well as the institutional entities such as the publishing houses, colleges and universities, hospitals, food factories, ADRA, ARM, and the organized portion of the local church, such as the pastor and his/her church board. This is the church that was initially developed by James White when he realized that without organization, the Seventh-day Adventist message could not be taken to the entire world.

The smaller box is indeed a business—an organization handling millions of dollars and employing thousands of people. How might principles of business help the organizational structure of the church?

The Adventist Church Organization

Business can show any organization how to accomplish its chosen task. For example, business processes can inform the church organization how to practice stewardship of financial and production resources. It can model good internal control systems that enhance accountability and transparency while reducing the opportunity for fraud and misuse. It can provide understanding for how best to use production resources, recycling materials and reducing scrap where possible. It can assist in creating processes that result in good human-resource decisions, made with the needs of the mission and immediate goals in mind. It can provide insight into how to design jobs, develop an employee’s talent, create reward systems, and communicate information effectively to all employees so as to promote understanding and community. Wise management methods can be studied and adopted from various corporations or easily-available management literature. For example, in his book Leadership is an Art, Max De Pree, son of the founder of Herman Miller, an innovative furniture-making business located in Zeeland, Michigan, and himself a member of its management team for over 40 years, stated in his discussion of participative management:

Participative management arises out of the heart and out of a personal philosophy about people. It cannot be added to, or subtracted from, a corporate policy manual as though it were one more management tool. Everyone has the right and the duty to decision-making and to understand the results. Participative management guarantees that decisions will not be arbitrary, secret, or closed to questioning. Participative management is not democratic. Having a say differs from having a vote.⁴

This is good management counsel for the church, especially given the representative nature of our church organization.

But the committee was not interested in hearing about the good things business can bring to the church’s organizational structure. They feared a business-like atmosphere in the church. However, if they had been asked whether a good internal control system was important for financial transparency and accountability, they would have answered, “Certainly!” They would have given the same response if asked whether they wanted the church to employ the best human resource procedures, the most refined strategic planning tools, and the most efficient production processes in its food factories and publishing houses.

Perhaps there is fear of unethical business practices becoming standard operating procedure in the church. There is no shortage of examples of businesses behaving badly: from environmental destruction, to financial fraud, or layoffs when there is an economic downturn, rather than attempts to maintain jobs.

The church organization should not copy any of these unethical business practices. It should avoid the authoritarian structures that are often exemplified in business; in the church, hierarchy is created for order, not for power. We do not want to hear church leaders speak like the president of a privately owned company when asked if his tactics would be different if he were running a public company (i.e., not being both the owner and the manager). He responded: “If I knew my compensation next year would be based on this year’s return on equity, (expletive deleted), I wouldn’t act the same. You’ve only got a few years at the top in a public company to make your killing. You want to put every penny on the bottom line to wind up with the juiciest retirement package you can get.”⁵

How can the church avoid being like “business” as defined above, and instead always act ethically?

Moral Accountability

Some experts believe that unethical actions occur in organizations because managers fail to discuss moral and ethical issues due to fear that such talk may lead to organizational disharmony, inefficiency, or cause the manager to appear to be weak or ineffective because of the perceived idealism of “moral talk.”⁶ They argue, however, that unless an organization creates a habit of moral reflection, it will suffer moral amnesia—and moral stress—and ultimately come to the place where moral actions cannot occur within the business culture.

The “institutionalization” of ethical talk is recommended to counter unethical action. To accomplish this, the organization should:

1. Allow for discussion of moral issues and permit legitimate dissent, assuring dissenters that they will not be personally blamed, criticized, ostracized, or punished for their views.

2. Focus discussions on what everyone agrees on (for example, shared long-term objectives and common ethical principles) so that these items appear basic, and factional differences temporary and relative.

3. Use moral talk to identify problems, consider issues, advocate and criticize policies, and justify and explain decisions. Avoid abusing moral talk by refusing to use it to rationalize or express personal frustrations.

4. Engage one another in reflection and dialogue about personal experience with moral issues. Such conversations demonstrate that leadership is seriously seeking efficient and reflective problem-solving about moral issues.⁷

Three more points could be added to the list:

1. Remember that decisions are not morally neutral; unintended consequences can occur.

2. Require some level of business education for everyone going into church administration so that misunderstood terms do not stop the church from engaging in the best business practices to achieve organizational order.

3. Share positive stories of business, not just the unethical ones.

The Church, the Body of Christ

But what about the Church, the community of believers? This is NOT a business. This is the Church—the body of Christ! We cannot afford to confuse the two, for the Church cannot be run like a business. The members of the Church are not employees and they cannot be treated as such. Business policies regarding employees and other stakeholders do not apply to members of the Church. Perhaps the best term for the members of the Church are “God-empowered volunteers.” As one author states, “Volunteers do not need contracts, they need covenants.”⁸

What is the difference between a contract and a covenant? A contract is a business term—a transactional term. The evidence of a contract is generally contained in a legal document signed by the parties to the contract. A contract may be part of a relationship, but it is never the complete relationship. When considering an action in a contractual environment, the individual is likely to ask, “Is this action legal and in accordance with the contract?” Or, to put this in the context of the church organization, one might ask, “Is it in agreement with Working Policy?”

A complete relationship needs a covenant, and a complete relationship is needed when one is a member of God’s Church. A covenant is not a legal document; it is transformational rather than transactional. It requires an understanding of the nature of the parties’ relationship—such as a marriage covenant or a baptismal covenant. In a covenantal environment, the individual will ask, “What does the contemplated action do to the relationship?” In the context of God’s Church, one might ask: “Is the action in accordance with Scripture?”— thereby questioning the action’s effect on the relationship of the body of Christ, the Church, with Christ Himself. In a covenantal situation, it is insulting to use contractual words or business language. The relationship is not legally defined; the questions asked before actions are contemplated are not the same.

An essay on intimacy states that covenantal relationships . . . induce freedom, not paralysis. (They rest) on shared commitment to ideas, to issues, to values, to goals . . . (They) are open to influence . . . (They) reflect unity and grace and poise . . . (They enable one) to be hospitable to the unusual person and unusual ideas. Covenantal relationships tolerate risk and forgive errors.⁹

Individuals are attracted to the Church because they have entered into a love relationship with Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit and they believe His Church and the people in it share Christ’s values, goals, and mission. In this environment, there must be trust, stewardship, and equity—qualitative rather than quantitative measurements are the ones used.

Trust is the father of openness…. Trust makes it possible to assemble the diverse abilities needed to achieve the potential… (When there is trust, one can recognize that) a diversity of gifts and opinions can be animated by the same spirit.¹⁰

Stewardship requires faithfulness. The Church has been blessed with individuals who carry the gifts of the Spirit, and their very presence results in a large stewardship obligation on the part of the Church and the church organization as it uses these resources to fulfill the Gospel Commission.

Equity means that everyone is granted “the right to be needed, the right to be involved, the right to be informed and thus to understand,”¹¹ and the right to justice. These qualities should be part of the covenant makeup of the Church.

But What If?

But what if the Adventist church organization should use its perceived power and authority to act as “the Gentiles do,” to lord it over the Church community of believers? The Harvard Business Review, calls for leaders to use “power to influence the thoughts and actions of other people.”¹² This understanding of power and authority often leads to abuse and oppression when the ones in authority use their offices to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of others. Jesus knows this temptation, and thus it is this interpretation of position that He forbids. In the context of the request of asking for a high position for her sons James and John, Jesus tells their mother that she does not know what she is asking for. He then goes further in Matthew 20:25–28 (NIV):

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.¹³

Jesus calls for those who wish to become great, who might be infected with the “Gentile virus,”¹⁴ to be servants. What does this mean?

Duane Elmer suggests:

“Power, when grounded in biblical values, serves others by liberating them. It acknowledges that people bear the image of God and treats them in a way that will nurture the development of that image.”¹⁵

Maxie Dunnan says:

“The way most of us serve keeps us in control. We choose whom, when, where and how we will serve. We stay in charge. Jesus is calling for something else. He calls us to be servants. When we make this choice, we give up the right to be in charge.”¹⁶

Commenting on this passage, Elmer states:

“By choosing to be a servant, we relinquish power, control and unilateral decision-making in favor of listening, learning and understanding, and emerge with a decision that reflects the wisdom of God and his people.”¹⁷

Historically, Gentiles’ systems resulted in what we know as the “divine right of kings”—a strong temptation to act in the place of God when dealing with others. These results were noted by Micah in his complaint to the people of his day, that they “despise justice and distort all that is right” (Mic 3:9, NIV). Jesus overturns the value structure of this world and calls for leadership that serves “with a profound humility that reveals a proper respect for God, for oneself and for others.”¹⁸

Conclusion

In God’s Church business procedures and policies are inappropriate, but in the Adventist church organization they are essential for clarity, coherence, and order. The Church empowers its leaders in the church to acquire, manage, and distribute the resources of the Church community for mission, which requires careful administration and an organizational structure in order to be successful in advancing the gospel. This structure may use business practices and terminology to do its work. But there is an inherent danger that because we live in a fallen world, and we ourselves are fallen people, of misunderstanding the roles assigned to us by the Church. Jesus recognized this temptation, and He warned us well when He said in Matthew 20:27: “Whoever is chief among you, let him be your servant.” (KJV)