In 1966, I attended a World Congress (a so-called “General Conference”) of our church for the first time. I was a student at Andrews University (Michigan, USA) and drove the 200 miles to Detroit in my rickety Pontiac Tempest on Sabbath to attend a massive meeting of delegates and guests. In 1975, the Dutch Adventist Church arranged for me to attend the General Conference as a guest in Vienna. After that I was, because of my job in the church, five times an official delegate to a world congress: New Orleans (1985); Indianapolis (1990); Utrecht (1995); Toronto (2000) and St. Louis (2005). And in 2010 I was in Atlanta at the invitation of our church journal Review and Herald, to assist in the daily reporting of the proceedings. It was always a pleasure to be part of our quinquennial international celebration.
Two weeks from now, the 61st World Congress, postponed by Covid for two years, will take place in St. Louis, in the American state of Missouri–albeit in a slimmed-down form. I won’t be there, and actually I don’t mind at all. To be honest, I don’t expect much from this General Conference session. And communicating about it with friends and others in my network, I get the feeling that my lack of enthusiasm is shared by many. Why? I think mainly of the following two reasons.
In our postmodern society (which has also greatly impacted on Adventist church life), interest in the church as an institution has gradually significantly declined. This is especially true of the role of the higher echelons of the church’s administration. Especially in the Western world, a large proportion of church members increasingly feel that the church is primarily about the local congregation, and perhaps also somewhat about elements in the church’s organization that have a direct influence on what happens lovally (“conferences” and-sometimes-”unions”). But “divisions” and the “general conference” are a “far from my bed”-show. This tendency, I believe, was clearly reinforced during the Corona period. Therefore, the upcoming World Congress “lives” much less among “ordinary” church members than previous congresses did.
But there is, I think, also another reason why interest in what is about to happen in St. Louis is very limited. Of course, the election of leaders in the church headquarters in Silver Spring and in the regional offices (divisions) is an important item. But, quite generally, there is an expectation (or concern?) that there will be no major personnel shifts, and that therefore the direction of the church will remain largely the same over the next few years. (I hope I am a poor prophet on this point and that we will be faced with pleasant surprises, but I am not very optimistic on that point.)
Other than the elections, the agenda (which has been publicly released) is extremely boring. No major new initiatives are announced, as far as I can see. Perhaps that is, however, a reason to be grateful. I’m glad I don’t find a separate item on the agenda about the ill-fated idea of distributing hundreds of millions of copies of the Great Controversy worldwide, although I do wonder what is hidden under the cryptic agenda item no. 123: Three Angels’ Messages Report.
Unfortunately, there are also hints in the agenda document that the current church leaders do want to give us another push in the orthodox direction Traditionally, delegates are asked to express their confidence in the Bible and in the “spirit of prophecy.” Why this has to be done every five years is beyond me, but aside from that, it is interesting to see how the accompanying documents sometimes undergo changes.
In 2015, the Bible was described as a “reliable record of God’s acts in history from creation to re-creation,” but now the wording is being tightened considerably: “The Bible is reliable in what it affirms. Its record of creation in six literal days, the fall of human beings, a global flood to destroy wickedness and preserve a remnant, Christ’s earthly life, death, and resurrection, as well as God’s numerous interventions in history for the salvation of human beings are trustworthy reports of God’s acts in history (Luke 24:27; Heb 1:1,17 2; 2 Pet 1:21). Prophetically, the fulfillment of predicted events in accordance with prophetic time periods establishes confidence in the Bible as a unique witness to divine truth unlike any other religious book (Isa 46:9, 10; Dan 2, 7, 8; Luke 24:44; 2 Pet 1:19, 20).” (Italics added by me).
Apparently, it is found necessary to make clear at every opportunity exactly what we are to believe regarding the inspiration of the Bible, and which interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis is “truth.”
The statement about the value of the “spirit of prophecy” (read: of the writings of Ellen White) is very disappointing. Not a word is said about the problems surrounding the person and work of Ellen White that have been raised by researchers over the last few decades. When is the church going to get serious about responding to these?
Of course, I will be following the deliberations in St. Louis. For I hope and pray, in spite of everything, that I will see signs of a new momentum in my church and of efforts to make what the church says and does more relevant to the world of today and also to my everyday life.