Last week the Executive Committee of the General Conference held its Spring Meeting. It is one of the two major annual meetings of this committee, with representation from around the world, although the union presidents, who (in non-Corona-times) are physical present during the Autumn Council, are not invited to attend the Spring meeting, unless there is a special reason to divert from this practice. This Spring Meeting was, because of the ongoing pandemic, once again conducted via Zoom.

During this Spring Meeting two items dominated the agenda: the replacement of two top leaders and the decision to schedule a one-day special General Conference session. As I tried to follow the proceedings as best as I could from across the ocean, I came away with some serious questions regarding both items.

Shortly before the Spring Meeting was to take place, both the current general secretary of the General Conference and the treasurer of the General Conference announced their desire to retire. According to the policies of the church, the replacement of leaders in the GC normally takes place when the world church is assembled in a General Conference session. However, there is a provision that, if needed, such a replacement can be arranged in between sessions. At the division level “officers” (president, secretary and treasurer) may be replaced through a nominating committee (with the involvement of the GC president or someone he has designated to represent him), and through a vote taken by the division executive committee. The process is similar when a GC “officer” must be replaced. A nominating committee is chosen from among the members of the executive committee. The nominating committee then meets under the chairmanship of the General Conference president and the recommendation from this committee is put to a vote in the executive committee. Thus, the process that was followed last week to elect a new general secretary and a new treasurer was perfectly legal and correct.

Nonetheless, what happened does not feel good. Unfortunately, it has become quite common for leaders in a division or in the General Conference to announce their retirement relatively shortly before a regular GC session. Admittedly, at present things are somewhat different because of the Corona-restrictions which have led to a postponement of a regular session. However, I (and many others) feel that as a rule leadership changes in-between-sessions should be kept to an absolute minimum. It is feared that at times, however, making changes in between sessions is preferred. It is widely recognized that current leadership has a much greater influence on the process when the changes are made in-between-sessions than they would have at a general GC session. And, if this is not a fact, it is, at any rate a perception that should be avoided.

So, I am left with the question: Could the two retiring officers not have been persuaded to stay at their post until next year? Or, if a change had to be made, could there not have been an interim-arrangement until the church would have a regular session (possibly on ZOOM) with much broader world-wide representation?

One aspect must not forgotten. The church is usually very reticent to consider new names when only recently people have come into an office. And when you have two brand-new officers, it will no doubt be argued that, for the same of stability in leadership, the one other officer should be re-elected. This means—I believe—that the net result of the vote at the Spring Meeting has significantly increased the changes that the current GC president will be re-elected for another term when the church meets about a year from now at the GC session (in its re-organized format). Some may be happy about this prospect, but for others this smells a bit too much of church politics.

The other important item that the Spring Meeting considered was of a technical nature. The GC Constitution currently does not have a provision for a General Conference session that is –at least partly—held virtually, with many people participating electronically. Therefore, it is proposed to organize a one day special GC session with just one item on the agenda, namely to change to Constitution in order to make virtual attendance and full virtual participation possible. A rather artificial construction must make that possible.

I am at a loss to understand the reasoning behind this. Due to the current travel restrictions, this one-day special session must happen mainly with people who happen to be in and around Silver Spring, who are then expected to rubber stamp the proposal. However, if a virtual Autumn Council and a virtual Spring Meeting can be justified on the basis of current rules, why cannot a virtual session meet for the first half hour or so as a “special” session, which deals with the Constitutional item, and then go on with all other business? If needed the decisions can be considered provisional, to be ratified by a future “normal” session. Does that not seem rather logical?

But, having said all this: Perhaps our main concern should be something else. If the higher church organizations do not want to be become more and more marginal (as certainly seems to be happening in many parts of the world during this pandemic), it must be seen as a spiritual force that inspires us and sets the church on a path towards the future as a community that has a faith that is relevant and a mission that responds to the real needs of twenty-first century people. It must not be seen as being mainly pre-occupied with issues of a technical-organizational nature. The real danger is not that many people will protest against the decisions that were reached during the Spring Meeting, but that more and more church members will say or at least think: “So, what.”

(revised)