Recently, the Ministries Council of the Church of God announced the new Interim Director of Church of God Ministries, Monté Dillard. This transition step is significant as part of the larger quest for change ahead of us. Now that I have had some time to consider it, I want to offer some reflections on this development and on where we are heading.
First, I want to congratulate Dillard on the appointment. This is a big role at a challenging time, so he definitely needs our prayers and support. While I have briefly met him, I do not really know him, so I have no personal opinion on his suitability for the position. Nevertheless, I trust the selection process. There were close to 40 applicants, and obviously the search team and the Ministries Council itself were impressed by his character and breadth of experience.
I must also reiterate that I am grateful that the Ministries Council exercised responsible leadership and good judgment by delaying the hiring of the General Director. I had called for this after Jim Lyon announced his intention to step down at the end of June 2025. The survey that was conducted in late 2023 led the Ministries Council to the same conclusion: We have some organizational work to do as a movement within the United States and Canada before pursuing the next leader to be ratified by the General Assembly. Consequently, they opted for a transitional leader to provide stability at Church of God Ministries, and to assist in the restructuring process.
There are, however, concerns.
I am somewhat perplexed by the glacial speed of all this. Certainly, we need to approach our future prayerfully and strategically, and I understand the limitations presented by the infrequent meeting schedule of the Ministries Council and the General Assembly. Nevertheless, despite Lyon not leaving until this summer, this process has unfolded very slowly. Even if the Ministries Council did not feel the urgency to have the Interim Director in place until June, I had hoped that more work would have been done to move along the effort to re-imagine our organizational needs as a movement. For example, it does not appear that a Structural and Polity Task Force has yet been appointed. This body is critical for assessing our needs, and should already be up and running. The fact that this is not yet in place reveals one of the glaring inadequacies of our current organization: We are ill-equipped to make decisions in a timely manner in order to take advantage of opportunities and to respond to important needs as they arise. Different issue, but we see this similarly in the Ministries Council failing to act meaningfully in response to the current divisions surrounding sexual ethics.
All that being said, all indications are that the Structural and Polity Task Force will be active over the next couple of years. One of Dillard’s major responsibilities as Interim Director will be to work alongside this group. I expect that we will hear more about the details and projected timeline in Denver in June.
Not to be a downer, but knowing how slowly the wheels of bureaucracy turn in the Church of God, I wonder how realistic it is for us to have this all solved before General Assembly 2027? It was somewhat simple to identify the need for change revealed in the 2023 survey, but arriving at a workable solution that is widely affirmed by our diverse constituency is much more difficult. To think that the task force will be able to conduct meaningful consultation with the church, and to present a compelling vision for reorganization in two years seems somewhat unrealistic to me. Should it be done by then? Yes, I believe we need robust action. Can it be completed by 2027? Yes, I am convinced that if this is a priority for us, it is achievable. I just do not believe that we are currently set up adequately to make that happen, and we have many internal and external factors to overcome first.
To be fair, I have not heard the 2027 target explicitly declared by the Ministries Council. The evidence of their implicit confidence lies in the stated desire to have the permanent General Director in place within 24 months. In the recently published FAQs they have stated that the work of the Structural and Policy Task Force “will help ensure that when we call our next General Director, we are fully prepared for strong, healthy, and sustainable leadership.” In other words, they are setting up two parallel tracks to run simultaneously: the Structural and Policy Task Force, and the Search Committee for the General Director. The hope is to have these converge in two years.
I find this troubling. Again, I am all for moving forward with urgency, but there is a sense of order that is needed in this process, and that is being ignored here. I believe that we must first resolve our organizational vision before resuming the search for the General Director, otherwise we are forcing the assumption that the position of General Director will continue to exist as it has, within the new structure. By hiring before making the determination of our future hinders us from asking the tough questions necessary and finding the right person(s) for the new path forward. As I have previously suggested, we must be willing to reinvent our leadership needs for the future, and that may mean adopting a new model that differs significantly from the General Director role we are currently using.
This is a critical period in the history of our movement for several reasons, including the need to establish a fresh new way for us to connect with each other and work together. I celebrate the steps taken to appoint an Interim Director and to begin a larger conversation on structure. I pray that we will do this in a manner that invites open dialogue and consultation, and is directed by a clear Jesus-centered vision of the Kingdom.
