Adventist Denomination Appoints VP for Media in North America
by Monte Sahlin
By AT News Team, July 30, 2014
Pastor Gordon Pifher, director of stewardship, leadership development and creative ministries for the Seventh-day Adventist denomination in the North Pacific, has been appointed vice president for media of the denomination in North America. In this new role he will be the officer primarily responsible for developing and implementing a media ministry strategy for all of the denomination’s media ministries across the United States, Canada, Bermuda, Guam, and Micronesia.
Previously Pifher served as president of the denomination’s British Columbia Conference in Canada. “We are excited about Gordon joining our leadership team,” said Pastor Daniel J. Jackson, president of the Church in North America. “I’ve known Gordon for many years and I know that his strengths in leadership and knowledge of media, along with his passion for sharing God’s love and compassion will only strengthen the mission of the church.”
Pifher will also work closely with the Adventist Church’s Hope Channel to develop new, regionally-contextualized programming. He will also coordinate the seven original media ministries as they develop new approaches for programming in major metropolitan areas.
“I am honored to be given this opportunity to serve the church in this vital role,” said Pifher. “I look forward to working in partnership with all the media ministries in our territory to explore new ways in which we can further the ministry of the church to serve.”
The LAST thing we need is another salary at the top levels of church leadership where the mindset is to keep pursuing the same approaches that produce the same lack of results.
"The LAST thing we need is another salary at the top levels of church leadership…" I agree with that part of the statement and will not comment on the rest at the moment.
Maranatha
C'mon, William, do you have to be so cynical and negative about everything?
Jim,
I guess the difference between cynicism and realism is our particular experience base. I like what works, disdain what does not and perhaps am a bit too outspoken in decrying the preservation and defense of the latter. I also used to work at the old Adventist Media Center so I've been an eyewitness to the damage well-intentioned church leaders caused to ministries that were far more effective before receiving their "guidance."
Why should we be spending a penny to "coordinate" something at a high level when all we need to do is watch and see how the Holy Spirit guides and empowers individuals in the ministries to which He has called them? Why do we imagine that we need any coordination or leadership other than the Holy Spirit?
William,
If you are willing to let the Holy Spirit empower these ministries that is good. Do you think they need to compete for a slice of the World Budget offering envelope line item as they have in the past? If the NAD is going to funnel even a small percentage of "missions" giving to these ministries, then should the NAD try to direct that money to things it believes will be most effective?
Alternatively should these ministries be cut entirely free from any form of church "sponsorship" and asked to compete with each other for the same donor base along with other "independent ministries"? From your own experience, what kind of funding model would you advocate? And what kind of governance model would you advocate?
No ministry is more vibrant and healthy than when it is completely dependant on the Holy Spirit.
Our various media ministries were never more vibrant and effective than before they started receiving funds from the church. That funding came not with strings attached, but binding ropes that prevented them from doing many things. The concept of having everyone give to a centralized budget from which funds would be distributed has been very damaging and limiting to all ministries. Not only did per-capita giving go down, the number of ministries seeking funding went up with the result that everybody got less. Yet the far worst result has been that church members have become disconnected from the ministries they once supported, so they feel less involved and are becoming less motivated to be part of the church itself.
Pastor Pifher is a tireless and energetic man, we are luck to have him placed in such a position. He has been a bright light in every position he has had for our church. Good job brethren. Only a well qualified woman could have done a better job I am sure.
Jack,
Did you ever see the musical "Man of LaMancha?" The most enduring song from that show is "The Impossible Dream." The main character sings it to express what he sees as a noble quest when he is still charging at windmills. Gordon Pifher is being asked to achieve what decades of Adventist media ministries have shown cannot be done.
God coordinates the work of groups, but he empowers individuals.
Historically the SDA denomination has been a precocious and highly effective user of electronic media, beginning with HMS Richards, Sr., and moving forward with William Fagal, George Vamdeman, their successors, and later some independent and ethnic/language specialty ministries. None of the primary founders are with us in leadership any longer, and to introduce a play on words, "we seem to be foundering" in a field where denominationally we once excelled all others.
Perhaps our Church in media has relied too heavily on a business plan that emphasizes one great leader per ministry; in fact promotes that leader so enthusiastically, that it becomes very difficult to satisfactorily transition from that individual without a terrible cost in re-birthing pains.
Gordon Pifher recognizes that change comes very rapidly in the North American population, far more rapidly than it ordinarily does in our conservative denomination. If and when our media brain trust can excel in anticipating demographic changes and preemptively begins early sales work to the Adventist public regarding those changes ahead, we can begin to recoup the highly enviable position we once enjoyed as possessing some of the best, most far-sighted ideas for electronic ministry on the continent.
Edwin,
Let's clarify a couple things.
First, individuals within the church have been, as you put it, "precocious and highly effective user of electronic media." NOT the denomination. When individuals worked as they were guided by the Holy Spirit they had positive impact. But when the denomination took over their ministries went into decline. I've sat in meetings where George Vandeman complained about the ineptitude of well-intentioned church leaders who had no concept of how media ministries actually worked and as a result were creating problems. I remember vividly the day HMS Richards, Jr. told me that the worst decision of his life was the day he recommended that the Voice of Prophecy Board vote to bring that ministry under control of the General Conference as part of the Adventist Media Center. The history of Adventist media ministries is that they go downhill when they come under control of the denomination.
Second, Adventist media have always been a minority role with relation to other religious media and a microscopic role as a part of total electronic media. For every hour Adventists have been on the air, other denominations have logged hundreds of hours on the air. Any claim otherwise is based on illusion.
I have nothing negative to say about anyone tasked with coordinating media ministries. I pity them because of the futility of the task they have been given.
Edwin,
Part II.
When have you ever seen a successful and impactful ministry that was not led by an individual? They're essential for two reasons. First, God empowers individuals for ministry and to lead ministries. Second, people instinctively follow leaders and, in the absence of a dynamic leader they go in search of such leadership.
Groups are followers of leaders. Christians are followers of Jesus. When the founding leader of a media ministry steps aside or dies, the ministry may continue for some time but quickly goes into decline because the donor base identifies with the leader. Dan Matthews was a dynamic and capable leader but never enjoyed the stature and support that Bill Fagal had because he was not the ministry founder and people did not identify with him in the same way. HMS Richards Jr. came close to his father as a leader because of the similarity of his name to his father's, but the ministry went into decline after the father's death and more steeply after his death. The same thing happened to It Is Written after George Vandeman. The same has happened to EVERY religious media ministry regardless of church affiliation.
Any idea of the church operating a media ministry without a single, dynamic leader at the head is to ignore both how God empowers ministries and fundamental human behavior.
People flocked to see and hear HMS Richards, Sr. One can have multiple speakers but risk losing the audience. There have always been great speakers and great leaders and in the church. Many could have said or written what Paul wrote, but his personality and devotion made him a leader, plus his former training. The church has always had leaders that stood out above the crowd. This will not change.
William Noel
You have not only a first-hand, but a clear first-hand sense of media ministry limitations. VOP without HMS Richards (father or son), is just a tradition being carried on by an appointed place holder doing their best no doubt, which is nothing nearly like the life expression of the founder. It is just how it works, and in time doesn't.
When the church sold off the media center, they should have simiply closed down the ministries housed there. Their day is long past. And both the ministries and the center should have been closed in the 1990's at the latest.
The gospel cannot be turned into entertianment, and it is not a message that survives being electrified to potentially millions. It doesn't even survive with any lasting impact being merely amplified from the front of an meeting room with but a few dozen attending.
Ellen White was unambiguous about the Gospel. There is no substitute for the 'loving and lovable Christian' in person.
I've probably gone a bit further than you would. And I don't have your direct experience with Seventh-day Adventist media. That said, I've earned graduate degrees in mass communication from two highly successful university mass media schools, and have further studied and taught mass communication at the university level. And I founded a business that continues to provide services to media companies now in its 35th year. And I'm increasingly doubtful when it comes the potential role of mass communication in furthering the Gospel, let alone the work of the church.
I was mesmerized as a young person with the potential of mass communication. The prospect of 'impacting' a huge portion of the population for God was an irresistable temptation. My opinion fifty years later is that mass communication is antithetical to the Gospel and a waste of scarce resources by the church.
And it isn't the money that matters. What matters is that public evangelism and mass media efforts by the church do convey a message that is hughly effective in dissuading church members (and their pastors) that they can have any personal role in filling empty pews and empty church school desks, and swelling backyard social gatherings with neighbors not attending church with them.
Bill,
What you write is probably at least half-true. But Ellen also urged the church to establish print publishing houses, which was the mass media technology of her day. And to scatter the printed literature like the leaves of autumn.
Jesus taught one-on-one, in small groups, to large crowds, and even disrupted religious ceremonies at the Temple by shouting-out to the multitude who had not assembled to listen to Him. Sometimes He healed individuals but on at least one occasion He healed a group without singling them out individually. Likewise He sometimes fed small groups and other times thousands at one sitting.
God has many methods of reaching humans. No one method can reach everyone.
I live in a town with both 3ABN and Hope channels available on antenna broadcasts. I am surprised at the number of older non-Adventist patients I have who watch both channels. I even have Catholic patients telling me how nice Doug Batchelor is, although he "is wrong on a few things!" For myself as I channel surf, I can say that even with good intent nothing catches my interest most of the time when I hit these channels, but they do have an audience and it is larger than Adventists.
For myself I am amazed at how inept some of the "hosts" are for church programs. Those individuals must have been give the job by politics, surely not by merit? Good luck Gordon.
We have one SDA channel here in Portland and my observations would agree with yours.
It is amazing that God can work through such feeble vessels as we humans. Still I would like us to put forth our best when we try to speak for God in whatever medium.
How anyone in western civilization can now deny that mass media is an effective way to disseminate information is a mystery.
I have a suspicion that those who would deny this as regards to the Advent message have issues with its content.
As has been pointed out, Adventists had been pioneers and innovators in this area. Ours has thus far been a failure to prioritize and commit in this regard. If it had always been a priority to which the denomination was fully committed, the creativity and innovation would have followed. Meanwhile, businesses and politicians, and the rest of the religious community should double over with laughter at the notion that mass media somehow isn’t effective when used properly; and by properly I mean creatively, innovatively, and with a mindset of permanent commitment.
I’m gratified that Pifher sees this ministry area of the church as having a “vital role;” and indicates an eagerness to “explore new ways” to further its effectiveness.
I agree with everything you have said.
This does not deny thet there is more to evangelism and discipling than putting forth information.
Nor would I claim that mass media are necessarily or even primarily about conveying information. Arguably the information content in much of the programming is very low. Media are also about swaying opinions and modifying behavior. And just plain old entertainment of every variety.
While I was assembling my wife's latest contraption for her classroom (several hours for a skilled engineer) in the background was playing the NFL Hall of Fame Game. Not much information, not much entertainment. Mostly a bunch of noise from two commentators who are personally entertaining and did a good job of making conversation to cover for the spotty quality of the background programming. Basically I was using the TV like a radio. Other than a couple replays I never once looked at it.
The gorilla in the room of the current "mainstream" SDA media endeavors in North America is that they heavily depend on an aging donor base – primarily septuagenarians and octogenarians. If we are to capture the aging baby boomers as our future donor base we need to capture them now because they are almost there (70s and up). Not much time left.
On the other hand we claim to be trying to evangelize and disciple younger generations, but how to do this without alienating the core of the donor base? See my two Opinion articles about The Record Keeper, whose credits included as producers, etc, several Adventist leaders that were and are actually trying to address this disconnect.
What many here in North America do not realize is that current SDA media endeavors in more rapidly growing regions of the SDA world, are actually more in-touch with their target audiences. Could this be because the leaders in those regions are more in-touch with their target audiences, or perhaps because they are willing to empower and support (rather than controlling and undermining) those in their realms who ARE in-touch?
Dan Jackson and Gordon Pifher have their work cut-out for themselves 8-). I do not know Mr Pifher personally, but I do know people who know him personally. From what they tell me Mr Jackson has made a wise choice. Let us pray for these gentlemen and the challenges they face.
Thanks all for the follow up on my assertion that mass media is incompatible with the Gospel.
Stephen Foster, as usual, gets to the core of the issue. Content. It is not that one can’t speak of the Gospel in mass media, it is that the purpose of mass media is to keep people’s attention and establish recurring consumption. Thus the famous quote by Sam Goldwyn of MGM movie studio fame, supposedly during a conversation with one of his producers, ‘If you want to send a message, use Western Union.’
That Jack and Jim provide first-hand reports of people telling them they consume religious programming confirms that some people like it. What I have not heard and have not heard about is persons whose lives have been ‘made whole,’ if you will, by consuming religious mass media.
This does not mean that media isn’t useful. It is just like Jim found with the NFL game, mass media can be and often is an illusion that substitutes for missing companionship. It can also be a shared experience to provide a reason for a conversation, itself a social experience encased in phatic communication in nearly every case.
The suggestion that Jesus spoke to large numbers of people is useful. The difference between Doug Bachelor, say, speaking to crowds and Jesus speaking to crowds is pretty obvious. Jesus is the Gospel. Doug Bachelor is not Jesus. So it is impossible, in nearly every respect, to see Jesus when it is any preacher speaking.
Jesus promised the Holy Spirit, not mass media. Jesus made clear that the only identifying mark that describes those who are His disciples is that we love one another. Mass media isolates us from one another, rather than bringing us together.
It is personal testimony that propagates Christianity, is it not? Mass communication by design and in reality is isolating. And we cannot attribute the general and continuing ineffectiveness of mass communication to a paucity of truly ‘honest of heart’ in the audience, especially by inference when making an offering appeal for support of mass media efforts by the church.
Bill,
There is much truth in what you say. But as it happens I do know people who have come to Jesus via mass media. It happens more often that one might suspect. I have seen people come to church whom none of us ever knew before, who had been watching Shawn Boonstra or Mark Finley or George Vandeman. My own ancestors and my wife's became Adventists several generations back (at different times and places) after someone sold them a book. Once they believed, they then joined-up with other believers who had read those same books.
There are people who have a gift for reaching-out to others via writing or speaking from a distance using a pen or microphone. That in no invalidates the gifts involved in personal witnessing. There are many ways to witness and God can and does use all of them.
No to deny the challenge we face in relating to those who come to church because of mass media. When they get to church they do not find Shawn Boonstra or Mark Finley or George Vandeman. Many of the people they find do not even watch Shawn or Mark or George. So they often feel out-of-place. The personal church is not like the electronic (or print) church. We try to befriend these people but it can be very awkward to bond. Some stay with us but many do not.
The same thing happens when those who come to church because they like the pastor (or someone else) discover that person is leaving or is gone. It is interesting to see who comes or goes or comes back when a pastor leaves. That is happening in our church right now. I took the attendance on Sabbath and I saw who came and who did not and who left and who did not.
This is not to blame Shawn or Mark or George. Many who are attracted to Jesus are not attracted to His followers. How do we successfully create a cult of personality? How do we attract people to Jesus when Jesus is not physically present? We need to create a Jesus fan club.
This speaks to an all of the above approach that has been previously discussed. There should be no false choices presented.
My father’s family became Adventists nearly 80 years ago as a result of people knocking on their door in New York. Others in my family became Adventists through a Voice of Prophecy type of ministry. Another friend visited one of our churches after going online and studying for herself; she came during the week and chatted with the church secretary who was also a Bible worker, and she soon became an Adventist. Another musical friend joined our church as a result of interaction with other musicians. Carlton Byrd has baptized more people into our denomination than anyone else recently via creative local church and television ministry initiatives.
I differ from many in that I don’t believe that making people Adventists is, or should be, the primary goal or measuring stick for ministry effectiveness.
I believe that when we deliver the message—in word and deed—that people are not likely to hear or see elsewhere, that God will do the rest; and that this may or may not directly result in immediate baptisms at all.
Why is it that we feel everyone must become an Adventist to be saved? Don’t get me wrong, I know that we have truths (the Third Angel’s Message being one) that most don’t have; but some perhaps understand other truths even better.
I agree with Dr. Rupert Bushner, who said that what we have is true, but that we don’t have all the truth there is; because we’re not God.
When you are a small band of Christians that have been driven away from your previous church homes because of your radical views regarding the Second Advent, you tend to develop a defensive "us versus them" mind-set in order to survive.
When 170 years later you operate the largest Protestant school system, and in some third-world countires many if not most of the leaders have come-up through your schools (if not your churches), the "us versus them" mind-set is no longer necessary or productive.
Ironically, it was my wife who turned-on the TV to watch some news and left it on the NFL broadcast. She seems to have more of a need than I to have some background noise when she is doing things.
Drama has great power to portray personal experience and illustrate spiritual themes. Life is filled with drama and a powerful and transformative relationship with God is filled with drama and conflict. It was dramas telling realistic, personal stories that gave the old Faith For Today ministry it's power to reach audiences that would never be attracted to traditional religious program. This exactly illustrates the heart of our church's problem with using mass media effectively. We associate drama with the evil themes found in most programming and thus refuse to believe it might be possible to present positive themes and dramas that teach people about the power of God. Thus we prevent our greatest potential for using the media effectively.
The public is jaded about all mass media, as well as being very skeptical. The cable programs constantly advertise new features: even more channels available–for a heft fee, but with the growth in channels there is an inverse ratio to the worth of the content. It makes no difference if one can access 300 channels when there is nothing worth watching on any of them!
If I wished, as a retired person, I could watch TV all waking hours; but I only watch the evening news, Jeopardy, and Jon Stewart or Rachel Maddow. Nothing else; if bored, sometimes the food channel. For entertainment, the TV preachers are often good for laughs.
Years ago many called TV the "boob tube" and if it fit that description then, it is far worse today.
My feelings are similar to yours. I mostly prefer to read. Why subscribe to cable when I can get enough junk channels free over-the-air? I do enjoy watching a good game of football or baseball or hockey or even basketball or soccer. But the leagues are so diluted and the seasons are so long that mostly it is only worth watching the playoffs. At least with football I can read or do something else between plays or replays. Or even take a nap 8-). In India I used to tune-in the cricket matches to put myself to sleep.
I can get better news coverage online without the commercials.