n this segment General Conference president Jan Paulsen talks with William G. Johnsson about supporting ministries. Look for Elder Paulsen's perspective on the theological landscape of the church in next month's World Edition (June 13).

WGJ: There's been a proliferation of supporting ministries during the past 10 or 20 years. Is this a good thing or not?
JP: Everybody who has accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and who has embarked on a life of obedience to the Lord is the church, and the church expresses itself through mission. Everyone therefore who is the church is involved in mission. So I think it is a wonderful thing that we have such a widespread participation by many groups of ministries, initiatives, and activities.

How do you see the future? Do you see this tendency as something that will increase?
I think it would be a mistake on my part to use my office to regulate boundaries of involvement by supporting ministries. I say that because I genuinely feel that they are the church as much as I am the church. They have as much obligation to God (for which they will answer) as I do, and they have to be loyal and true to God, and true to who we are as a people. So I welcome this linkage, this togetherness, in mission. Also, to the extent that we honor and respect each other, resisting the temptation to caricature one another, to that extent the whole mission of the church is blessed. And did not the Lord's servant many a time remind us that when we do it together the work will be finished?

Occasionally I detect tensions between supporting ministries and administration. Is that necessarily bad?
Some tensions are good because they are also creative. They draw you into something that you feel strongly for. But there are some tensions that arise that are not good. These are tensions that are born or marked by a kind of battlefield attitude, where we engage in mudslinging and discrediting and become negative toward one another. I think there is a danger if ministries interpret their independence as meaning that they answer to no one but God. That becomes destructive. Fortunately, most of the supporting ministries today-and I think of the big ones that are clustered in Adventist-Laymen's Services and Industries (ASI)-work hand in glove with the elected leadership of the church. As a matter of fact, they treasure that relationship.

What is the genius of these supporting ministries?
A strong conviction that they want to be part of the finishing of the work. Their spirit is quite unlike highly critical reactionary movements that want to come in and be a corrective on what the organized church and leadership are doing. When you attend one of their conventions, for example, what permeates the atmosphere is: "We are mission, we want to be part of it, we are loyal to God and the church. We are going to be responsible."

Are these ministries performing functions that would be difficult for the church and its organized branches to carry out?
If the church's organizations such as the General Conference would try to house and plan and think and mark everything that is currently being done by supporting ministries, we would become a huge conglomerate operating building industries and carrying on with a broad agenda. Apart from the size of the whole and the unmanageability of it, I really think it is harmful to the church to try to put every creative initiative inside one administrative box. I think that having a number of these outside is a challenge to our trust.

You know, 20 or 30 years ago there was a lot more of "Let the clergy do it and we will support them. Let them do it." That mind-set is basically being left behind in our church. In some places where we are growing most rapidly today, the employed ministry and the elected leadership of the church are to a large extent handing mission initiatives over to laity. They become the supporters of a lay-driven life of mission. I think that's a wonderful thing.

From a human standpoint this could also be somewhat scary. How do we hold it all together?
If someone succumbs to the temptation of being a maverick, I see that as a danger signal. You become a loose cannon, albeit well motivated in your own right, but you become too orientated toward yourself and how you see things. And that is not good. There has to be a constant interlinkage, a constant reference to what is good for the body as a whole. I find that for many of these laypeople who are driven by mission the big question is: "Does this fit into the plans of the church? Is this in harmony with what the church would like to see happen in this or that part of the world?" With that kind of consultation, I find the church in many parts of the world saying, "Yes, it's wonderful. Come in, share with us, and be part of it."

Are you troubled about money being diverted from regular church offerings into supporting ministries?
A few weeks ago I was in Salem, Oregon, for a Maranatha/Global Mission rally. There were about 1,200 to 1,500 people present. The whole program was beautifully put together. They took an offering specifically designated for churches in India, and some $150,000 came in.

Did you say $150,000?
That's right-$150,000 for church buildings in India. The conference president was present. He said, "Would that we received this kind of an offering at the camp meeting," but he also said, "However, that doesn't worry me one bit. We'll get it back." No, I'm not worried about gifts to supporting ministries. If you look at what's happened inside our church in the past eight or 10 years when giving to specific supporting initiatives of the church has increased, simultaneously the tithe has increased. Somebody out there is saying to the church, "You are getting your act together as a mission community." And they want to support the church in this.

What other counsel would you leave with supporting ministries?
Many of the supporting ministries have big initiatives that they take to another part of the world. That's fine. I think it is very important in planning a series of evangelistic campaigns in another part of the world, that they do this in the closest possible consultation with the local church. For two reasons: First, you cannot come and import a particular evangelistic focus from one culture into another. You cannot do it in two or three weeks and expect that people are going to be ready to respond to Jesus Christ in that setting. There must be planning over a long period when people are, in fact, brought to Christ, understand what discipleship means, and are ready to embrace it. Then the evangelistic campaign becomes a moment of celebration or festivity rather than the total teaching. Second, these individuals who have been brought into the church-in some places by the thousands in one particular mission-need to find a home in the church. They need to find people with whom they can establish relationships and contacts. If we don't have a bonding mechanism with the local community, if the people don't have a chapel in which they can meet to worship, most of them will be gone before 12 months.

In summary, what do you see supporting ministries bringing to the church and its mission?
First of all, I think they bring to the table a wide, broad sense of participation and finishing of the work. I see a direct relationship between that and spirituality in the church. The more that people choose to involve themselves, seeing themselves as part of the mission, that's the greatest benefit to the church. I also think that it is good for me to listen to persons from supporting ministries who are involved in mission. They have their experiences. They gain their wisdom in mission along the road as well, and they can give counsel.

You don't see a rivalry?
No, I don't sense that at all. I don't get that sense from them. They don't see themselves as such.

They probably would be shocked at that characterization of them.
They would. They simply want to be useful to the Lord and support the church. I'm so glad that we went away from the description "independent" ministries to "supporting" ministries. Because that really is what describes them.

Let me add just one point. These ministries give opportunities for men and women in their 70s and even their 80s to become involved. I mean more than just simply praying and writing a check-actually going out with them. And at the other end are individuals who are just finishing high school, who as a precollege experience will give a year to the Lord and become part of a lay initiative. In the employed ministry we take people between their professional qualification and retirement, but here we have widened the span considerably at both ends. The Lord touches hearts of both teenagers and of our senior members, and they are saying, "Well, I also want to go." I think it does something wonderful for a young person 16, 17, or 18 years old to be able to go out and experience and taste and smell the sweat and dirt of mission before they continue with their professional qualifications.