BMX Bicycles and Evangelistic Pipe Dreams
by Danny Bell
by Danny Bell, April 29, 2014
I was around when the first BMX bicycles came on the scene. There was nothing really different except that they had these really cool-looking front forks, more rounded like a motorcycle, which enabled boys to dream, getting closer to the feeling of being on a real motorcycle. My parents couldn’t afford a new BMX, so I set about making my own rounded forks by welding pipe onto my old bike's goose neck.
I remember how awesome they looked when finished but looks weren’t enough – they had to be tested. A large ramp was constructed, and a risky young boy headed flat out for it. I seemed to be in moto-cross heaven as I soared through the air like the guys on TV – then I landed. The forks snapped on contact with the ground and I was hurtled face first into the dirt. Winded and dazed I remember lying in agony, thinking, "This is not how I imagined it." It wasn’t motocross anymore but a pipe dream that had a very real and painful end.
I continued to dream, however, along with thousands of other boys as bicycles became more and more like motorcycles, evolving with cantilever suspensions and telescopic forks! But no matter how much they looked the part, the cold reality was that they were still only bicycles. We didn’t care, though; we were having catharsis – the feeling of being on a motorcycle even though we weren’t. It fed our fantasies of what a motorcycle must be like, and it felt good while we were doing it – except for the crashes and burns.
When thinking back on these experiences, I see similarities with how we do church and wonder if we have the same impulses, particularly with our model of traditional evangelism. Are our methods about making us feel good rather than serious attempts to reach the masses? We may add fancy new forks or a crossbar but isn’t it just the same old bicycle?
Western culture has moved on from where it was 50 years ago, challenging our styles of evangelism and expected results. Isn’t it time to seriously rethink our methods, realizing that while it makes us feel good, it is nowhere near the thing we make it out to be? In our enthusiasm to get results, are we ignoring the obvious and engaging in nothing more than a cathartic experience?
In another article I discussed how we use a lot of resources and effort with minimal results because our axe or approach is blunt.1 We know that large public campaigns are not having the impact they once had. Opening nights see large numbers of strangers attend until they realize they are in a mass Bible study. It is not uncommon to lose up to two-thirds of an audience in the opening week. When it starts sounding like church, non-Christians will walk.
In my own country, McCrindle Research showed that Australians are OK with Jesus because 64% checked the Christianity box in the last census, but only 20% indicate church attendance, leading many researchers to believe the weak link is how church is marketed.2 Spirituality is alive and well in Australia but it doesn’t translate into church attendance. They like our product but not the retail outlet. Here, then, is an opportunity to rethink our strategy and make the changes needed to get leverage with the public.
Our large message-based programs will always be part of an overall evangelistic strategy for the church. The challenge in a culture that shuns religion and bows out when things get churchy, however, is how to best get the Gospel message to the public while getting bang for our buck.
The public message-based programs come with the idea that they are reaping programs. They usually come after there have been some local church contacts made from smaller-based ministries leading up to the event. In reality this is not what usually happens, because most public programs kick off with a majority of the audience being strangers, never hearing of Adventists or our message until opening night. In most cases, the programs are well-resourced but the outcomes can fluctuate wildly, with mass losses and few baptisms on the back of a heavy price tag.3 There are many excuses made to justify the huge spending with meagre results but this isn’t good stewardship and leaves us open to Jesus’ condemnation, “You cross land and sea to make one convert” (Matt 25:15), and what an expensive crossing it was!
Why not spend the large sums normally spent on advertising, hall hire and glossy brochures on the smaller grass roots friendship-type ministries? Doing this, we would see changes in attendance and retention at message-based programs. Instead of a church having one or two grass roots ministries – it could have as many as twenty or more. The contacts from these multiple smaller ministries would be on friendly terms with our churches, and friends don’t walk out en masse from public programs – strangers do.
If we pour the large evangelistic allocations for traditional programs into smaller serving ministries, the effect will be a breakdown of prejudice, endearing the church to its community. In this way we will always have at the ready a constant sizeable number of contacts with whom we have built up trust. When we hold a prophecy program, it can be held in-house, no outlay for halls or expensive marketing. Best of all, there will be no massive losses after opening night. All attendees invited from the smaller ministries know who we are and what we stand for – no scary surprises.
Another benefit of the multiple ministry approach is that there will be more avenues for church members to use their talents, so less obligatory effort is required as people find their niche and love what they do. The sky is the limit when it comes to ideas about how to engage the community. There are plenty of churches doing this around the world already from Men’s Sheds, Love laundries and Booze buses – all reaching across a broad spectrum of people and cultures.
My grandmother said it best:
God’s workmen must labor to be many-sided men; that is, to have a breadth of character, not to be one-idea men, stereotyped in one manner of working, getting into a groove, and unable to see and sense that their words and their advocacy of truth must vary with the class of people they are among, and the circumstances that they have to meet.—Letter 12, 1887.
Have we gotten into an unhealthy groove? Are we having catharsis instead of wanting maximum impact to reach souls? Our big digital spectacular programs may make us feel warm and fuzzy, but the hundreds who don’t come back after opening night may not have the same feeling when they discover the experience didn’t match the glossy brochure. Should we even run large traditional programs unless there has been substantial groundwork done by the local church? – are we wasting God's money? Also, why do we persist in focusing on only the narrow slice of the community our programs seem to attract? Let's face it; most of our programs attract mostly intellectuals, women, children and old people. The vast majority of blue collar types throw the advertisements in the bin.
The bicycle we have relied on in the past has ridden well and many souls were saved, but have we been attentive to the changing terrain where we live? Are we using a penny-farthing4 on a track that requires a BMX? And here is something else to think about; when we have a chance to influence a stranger for God and we fail, rarely do we get a second bite of the cherry. Many of these walkers will be harder to reach and more resistant to approaches from Christians next time around. Are we creating the very environment that is hurting us and our program attendance?
People don’t care what you know unless they know that you care. We must re-think our methods to suit the emerging mindset in our communities. Australia, and indeed western society, is a difficult field but engaging in activities for the sake of making us feel good is no substitute for the real thing – trust me, there is only pain at the end of that ramp.
1"Chopping With Blunt Axes," (South Pacific) Record, March, 2011, p.14.
2Spirituality and Christianity in Australia Today, McCrindle Research, April 5, 2012.
3Some reports show more than $20,000 being spent per local church.
4A penny-farthing is a bicycle with a large front wheel and a much smaller rear wheel.
Merely stuck a groove? Try so deep in a canyon that we seldom catch sight of the sun to even know what direction we are going! My congregation never grew steadily or more until we quit doing public evangelism and started focusing on developing and supporting ministries that improved the lives of both members and the people we met.
True Bill, the "groove" I suppose is dependent on each church individually and how deep they are in it. Overall though I can come close to your assessment, we are on a massively loaded train speeding along a track out away from the cities we are meant to be reaching. Those stoking the fire are remnants of an era of men who are not really in it for the church but are simply participating in a comfort ritual that has changed little since their childhood.
Danny,
I appreciate your common-sense article on public evangelism. It works in some world areas, at least in the short term, but not in NAD or other secular cultures. Thoughtful people have been saying this for decades, but it never seems to get through to the top echelons or to those who are providing the limited-use monies.
Suspicious of anything new (Note The Record Keeper debacle), creativity is squashed, even at the last minute (isn't something better than nothing?).
I think you are right–people or churches want to feel like they are doing something for God; whether it works or not isn't the issue. Too many times it's a self-centered project. They become poor stewards, doing their own thing.
Your solutions make a lot more sense, and would be more longlasting. God bless.
Danny,
Thanks for your excellent article. We do need to re-think evangelism. The questions are: Does what we are doing work? How many are being brought into the Truth and the Church by current evangelistic methods? (and at what cost). And, do we continue with ineffective methods to make us feel good – that we are doing something?
Einstein stated that the definition of "insanity" (pardon the term) is when we keep doing the same things over and over again (that don't work), while at the same time hoping for better results.
Secondly, we need to keep trying to find methods that are highly effective. One way: Look around and see what people who are getting major results are doing and head in this direction.
And, pray for the HS's help, and keep on trying to become more effective. Edison tried 10,000 times before he got the lightbulb to work, but look at the subsequent success he's had at bringing light to the world.
Thirdly, think big. God is huge and unlimited. Let's not limit God by our miniscual thinking. Global media is the only way to reach the 7-8 Billion people on this planet. God has placed in our hands the means to reach all through the global reach of the internet, internet TV and radio, satellite systems, etc. Just do the simple math. There is no way that handing out nice brochures, holding large evangelistic events or even local radio or television can ever get the job done.
We need to look at evangelism strategically, and constantly measure the results and improve, and . . pray, pray . . .and pray some more. With global media and the power of the Holy Spirit, we will wittness things never seen before.
I hear what you are saying and agree with much of it. We abstolutely need to re-think our approach, recognize what is not working, rid ourselves of it and find what works. Even so, I disagree with your conclusion that "Global media is the only way to reach the 7-8 Billion people on this planet." This concept makes five false assumptions: 1) that everyone on the planet has access to the mass media; 2), that we can afford the cost of geting our message carried by those media; 3) that people will pay attention to it; 4) that they will respond affirmatively; and 5) that the church has the resources to integrated everyone in all the places where they might respond. Assuming mass media outreach will carry the Gospel to the world is like asking the sun to rise in the west.
There is yet a sixth false assumption in your proposition: that others will do the work of carrying the Gospel to the world that we are unwilling to do. God didn't tell someone else to go win souls for the Kingdom. He told you and me to do it. So I'll give you a far simpler, affordable and massively more powerful method: ministering the love of God in ways that improve the lives of others. I'm talking things as simple as helping your neighbor with mowing their yard when a family member is injured and unable to do it, delivering meals when the homemaker is ill and can't do as much to care for their children, buying someone a tank of gas so they can get to a job interview, and a thousand other one-on-one ways to say "I care about you because God cares about me."
There are no laws against loving others and love can do greater things than you have imagined. We received an example of this a few days ago in an e-mail from a Taiwanese friend from when I was in graduate school almost 20 years ago. I observed that he was having difficulty with English and decided to see what I could do to help him. We began inviting him over to the house on Wednesday evenings for tutoring. That grew into dinner and tutoring, then Sunday mornings for breakfast and tutoring. We became his American family. Over time what he saw in us caused him to want to become a Christian and that faith has carried him through some very difficult times. We have kept in touch over the years since. The latest news was that he was in England working on a Ph.D. and was nurturing faith in God among the classmates he has befriended at Cambridge University.
Yesterday the team I lead at my church was helping a young family with three small children move. After lunch I heard the wife sharing with a team member about how much she appreciated the help. Her feelings went far deeper because she knew she was part of a church family where she could help others and, if she needed help, she would receive it. Then she really touched my heart when she said that being part of such a church family made her want to bring people into the church, not just for what we believe, but for the relationships that form when we love each other and how they make people want to know more about the God whose love motivates them to share His love.
I gotta agree with Bill but mass media has to be used as well – nothing is off the table….
Agreed. Let's just not get carried-away by any illusions about how effective it might be on more than a local scale and when use in a very focused manner. In America a person is 3X more likely to watch an infomercial for fitness equipment than to watch a religious television program.
3rd Generation SDA. i agree with your suggested mass media approach. William is also right on with his "in your neighborhood witness" by seeing to the needs on a first person basis and organized teams. But the "worldwide witness" to get the attention of the masses, will be achieved millions of years sooner, by a mass global appeal, which utilizes all of the mass market coverages. And this requires truly "expert services". If we make contact with the masses, with a "WAKE UP CALL",of "?????WHERE WILL YOU SPEND ETERNITY????? The Holy Spirit will do the pursuing, and the wooing. This should be a "REACH HUMANITY" now. It should be a large budget professional outpouring of the Christian message of LOVE. This is what our leadership should be promoting with all the other Christain Churches, participating in a Giant undertaking of cooperation, bringing the top professional talent that money can buy, for each of its parts, strategic planning with the synergy to bring all the parts to a successful launch, follow up, and reaping. The Churches need not be jealous of the rewards and credit for a soul saved. All the praise should be for our Saviour, Jesus Christ.
I think that kinda goes against what I wrote Earl.
My appeal was that the "mass media" approach is expensive and inneffective – look at the current programs running across our countries – massively expensive and verry little fruit in terms of quanity and quality/type of souls won.
I think Adventists take a "professional" expensive line when doing evangelism, not because its the most effective means but because its the easiest way. The less personal contact with the public the better, if we can put together a super dooper media program and have them just line up at the hall door, thats makes us feel great as we didnt have to put in much effort and they are here in their hundreds.
As mentioned in the article though, when the dust settles, there are more empty chairs than full ones and the sad reality is that it was alot of money for a little result. Good stewardship requires that we get bang for our buck, not needlessly chucking money at the mobs who may or may not enter our side show.
Earl,
The problem with relying on mass media is that it lures us into becoming uninvolved and imagining we are part of God's soul-winning team when we are not. Jesus didn't tell the disciples to pay the Samaritans or the Greeks to take the Gospel to all the world, He told them to go and personally deliver the message. We're either disciples of Christ whom He has directed, equipped and empowered to carry the Gospel to the people around us, or we're not His followers. Period. We shouldn't be talking about using the mass media, we should be talking about discovering the empowerment of the Holy Spirit.
In reviewing this thread I noticed that 3rd Generation has perhaps only made one of the “five [or six] false assumptions;” or those made are just not false.
3rd Generations statement that “Global media is the only way to reach the 7-8 Billion people on this planet,” is acknowledgement/recognition that you can’t reach everyone without reaching those who have access to “the internet, internet TV and radium satellite systems, etc.; ” not a statement/assumption that everyone does.
But again I ask, what possible sense does it make to cede territory made available by these technological advances and innovations? When business people, commercial advertisers, and the entertainment industry—not to mention other religiously based operations, endeavors, and ministries—are seeking to take advantage of these many innovations, why should we cede territory to them? If someone would please answer/address that question, I would be very appreciate (and informed?).
Many ministries and businesses, which seemingly have ubiquitous presence and influence in the market, are much smaller in size, scope, and access to capital than is the 18 million member General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. So the assumption, “that we can afford the cost of getting our message carried by those media” is a correct assumption, as no other denomination gets as much relative financial support from its members (according to the late Yale professor Sydney Ahlstrom’s, A Religious History of the American People). In other words, if local churches and individual ministries can and do invest/pay/afford to be on “the internet, internet TV and radio, satellite systems, etc.,” so can we.
3rd Generation must assume that some people will pay attention to our message and that some will be convicted by the Holy Spirit and respond in due time. It seems that 3rd Generation believes that Isaiah 55:11 is not a false assumption. Of course 3rd Generation is not mistaken.
Danny,
Thank you for your appeal for creative strategic thinking in missions and evangelism. Unfortunately what has ensued in the discussion is a case study in false choices.
Certainly and without question we should be actively engaged in personal ministries of love. This would have more of an impact if participation in such ministries were greater. By the same token your suggestion of small group ministries makes perfect sense too. It is a creative and seldom/under-utilized approach. We should also be much more committed to mass media ministry efforts.
We cannot be absent where other ministries are present. This is why I applaud and urge continued support of The Hope Channel. We should also have much larger radio footprints than we do on Christian radio stations/networks.
I know that as the word of God is preached, it doesn’t return void. Institutionally we are too focused on baptisms. The baptisms would come if we took an all-of-the-above approach to missions and evangelism. If we did everything—everything would work.
But we are essentially the mail men. It’s our responsibility to deliver good news. We should allow the Holy Spirit to convict people—and conviction doesn’t always immediately translate into baptisms into the Adventist church. But doing everything would obviously be effective.
Thanks for this thought and action provocation.
Stephen,
Your heart is in the right direction but needs a reality check.
Christian radio stations draw the smallest audiences in their respective markets. Sometimes those audiences are so small they don't even register in the audience surveys done by companies like Arbitron, Radio Dynamics, etc. They survive because they are supported by donors who think the station is reaching far more people than they actually reach. What is the actual contribution of those stations to spreading the Gospel and creating new believers? Extremely minimal.
The same applies to religious TV programs aired on commercial stations and even networks like 3ABN, Hope Channel, etc. A 1983 study by the Annenberg School of Communications gave the first real measure of audiences viewing religious TV programs in America. I was the first person at the Adventist Media Center to get their hands on the study. The results took us all by surprise. Not only was the total viewing audience far smaller than anyone had believed before, the composition of that audience surprised us. The "typical" viewer was female, with a high-school or less education, living in a rural area (more heavily in the American South or Southeast), age 56 or above, living on a fixed income and already a member of a fundamentalist church. In other words, the people least likely to have their mind changed by watching a program.
The value of religious radio and TV programs can be found in looking to see who listens to or watches what program(s) and why: They overwhelmingly are already believers and pick programs to compliment their faith. So I suggest the primary value of a radio or TV ministry is not in winning new believers but in sustaining those who already believe. This is a difficult concept to embrace when you've always been told that a particular program is spreading the Gospel to unbelievers. Yet it signals us that there is a major and largely-untapped market potential for Adventist programming. Only a small portion of Adventists living in media markets where Adventist programming is available pay any attention to those programs. Why? They do not see those programs as offering them any benefit. A frequent response to questions about how Adventists relate to programs produced by their church is "I heard a boring sermon on Sabbath, so why would I want to listen to another one during the week?" There is potential for programs using other formats to expand the audience for Adventist media.
Again I gotta agree with Bill, especially about the canned adventist programs whos format is only for adventists it would appear.
We have an adventist satelite TV group here called 3ABN. Adventists are mad about it. Everyone in the church is urged to get a satelite dish and they rave on about how good the shows are.
A viewing of a typical show will see conservatively dressed hosts in tie and suit (you would swear you are stuck in the 80/90's with some of the hair styles), and/or a group of smiling christians sitting around a piano singing old hymns – not very appealing to the blue collar market or even normal people.
When new converts enter the church they are quickly introduced to this form of indoctrination (not that its bad because many good theological discussions can be had on the shows), but its still "in house" and very conservative. Converts to 3ABN are easlily identifyable at church – they are the ones with heaps of DVD's and material under their arms spending sabbath afternoons huddled around the TV watching programs that satisfy their thirst for an introspective faith.
The same could be said for our public evangelistic programs who's audience is always more adventists than other. The advocates will be heard telling you how many they got to attend on opening night but they will never disclose the percantage of attendees who were adventist. Figures are hyped up in an attempt to convince you that God is working but dig a little deeper and you will find Adventists are the biggest consumers of their own product – thats what keeps it alive but as I said in my article…..they live in a bubble and the illusion is that they are making a difference when it is far from reality.
For the sake of discussion, let’s stipulate that what William said here is accurate.
The importance of the message trumps the size and demographic composition of the audience. Just because there are primarily Christians listening to Christian radio is not a reason for Adventists to partially/completely cede that territory. The same, and then some, is certainly true with regard to television (in 2014).
Wherever major religious broadcasters have a presence anywhere, we should have a presence too. I can’t say enough good things about the quality, content, and diversity of the 24/7 programming on the Hope Channel; and particularly applaud its nationwide distribution on DirecTV. There is always room for improvement and more innovation, but a good and full-fledged effort is undeniably in process; praise God!
Insofar as programming is concerned, I am a big advocate for the preaching ministry; especially when done in a teaching style. Our complete rendering of the Advent message is as compelling as anything can be. (David Asscherick, Walter Pearson, Ron Halverson, and Carlton Byrd for example are not boring.)
If we get the mail delivered to those who are ready, willing, and able to receive it, God will bless it; and He will bless it His time. This again is not to the exclusion of other creative and effective ministry initiatives.
The message trumps nothing. Rather, it requires that we do what is effective else we are wasting our time and limited resources. Jesus told his disciples that if the people of a village didn't listen to them then they should go elsewhere, so if we're doing something that doesn't work, we need to abandon it and do something different. The vast majority of TV viewers won't watch a preacher so we need to find ways to communicate that will capture and hold their attention.
Your enjoyment of Hope Channel illustrates my point that it has a role, which is confirming and supporting what you already believe instead of imagining that it is effective at coverting unvelievers. Let's be honest and promote it for what it does, not by claiming it does what it does not do.
If we're going to be effective at "delivering the mail" we need to package our messages in ways that entice people to watch. Advertisers use audience demographic research to guide the refinement of their message and maximize their return on investment. But religious broadcasters have vigorously resisted doing it because preaching is the only method they know. I'm aware of exactly one time they did any actual audience research. That was back in the early 1990s when the National Religious Broadcasters recognized the ineffectiveness of religious programs and commissioned a study to identify what methods did and did not work to communicate religious themes. When they saw the report they tried to bury it because it showed preaching was the absolute least effective way to communicate with the non-religious. Audiences responded best to real-to-life dramas showing the value of Christian principles in action. So if you want to find creative ways to share Gospel themes, do something besides preaching.
"Converting unbelievers" seldom/never happens in a vacuum. The preaching-teaching ministries I refer to are effective; and getting the message to all who would otherwise be watching/listening and influenced by other messages of the same genre is important beyond what can be measured.
It is not our responsibility to convert. The Holy Spirit converts in every instance. Everyone is not going to be a consumer of religious programming, not intentionally anyway. And of course our programming needs to be packaged creatively, relevantly, and thus effectively. Real life dramas and accounts are effective. But again it’s not an either/or proposition. 24/7 gives us the opportunity to present varied programming in which to do everything. If anyone has watched Hope Channel they know that they attempt a wide variety of programmatic approaches and do it well.
It is in the numbered grouping with all of the other religious networks in the DirecTV menu of channels (or lineup). People who, for whatever reason, are in the market for religious programming have Hope Channel available for them to tune to. This is certainly how it should be.
Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, T.D. Jakes, Kenneth Copeland, Charles Stanley, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer and many others have influenced and are now influencing the Christian community in America entirely because of their mass media presence. It makes not one possible lick of sense to purport to have more Biblical truth than these good folk, and have the gifts in our ranks of those I have named and many, many others (including Chaplain Barry Black who I overlooked) and cede the territory of mass media to others who don’t have this message.
(It is in fact shameful in my view, that giants such as E.E. Cleveland, and C.E. Bradford, and C.D. Brooks, and H.M.S. Richards, and Morris Venden, among others have either have reached octogenarian status or died without becoming household names in the United States similar to these other folk; simply because they, and more importantly, the message they have (or had), were not afforded the broadcast exposure that others have.)
Indeed the message does trump everything William. If not, then what is this about? If the message doesn’t trump everything, then why should we try any methods whatsoever? I can’t reiterate enough that this is not an either/or proposition, but both/and; or should I say, 'all of the above.'
It is not our responsibility to convert. The Holy Spirit converts in every instance – Steven
I wonder though steve if this is something we hide behind to satisfy our consciences that we have done enough. I heard similar statements in my own church from people who feel that when people dont turn up at church, its their fault. The proof as Bill is hinting at Steve is in the pudding – the church int he US and my country is in a soul crisis losing thousands – 8000 go missing from the church in Nth America alone each year. That means they dont know where they are…….think about how staggering this is???
When I confronted a church member about how our young men are rapidly leaving in droves, they simply replied, "you cant change them danny, we have told them the message, and they know it, and it is up to them to be ready to come back".
This is an incredibley selfish response to the masses that are walking away from what is an irrelivant message in style and cultural nuances. As I hinted at above, the adventist media machine is the easy way out and has become our sacred cow at which we throw gold and dont realise we have made a god out of it.
Stephen,
Effective? Please, give us a way of measuring that effectiveness.
A carpenter uses a tape measure to mark where to cut lumber. A merchant counts the cost of their inventory against the prices for which items are sold. A conference president measures the effectiveness of a pastor by the number of people they baptize in a year. A conference executive committee measures the effectiveness of an evangelist by dividing the cost for a crusade by the number of baptisms produced. But so far no one has been able to come up with an effective way of measuring the impact of media ministries and their contribution to church growth. Perhaps you could suggest such a method.
In the past I have seen several very limited surveys of new church members that measured what factors contributed to their decision to join the church. Media ministries played, at most, a very limited role while most respondents were completely unaware of Adventist programs on radio or TV in their areas. This data contrasts sharply with the view you keep defending where you obviously believe such programs are far more effective than the available information indicates. Other limited surveys conducted in markets with Adventist programs on the air provided additional information. Most respondents had heard the programs were on the air but could not tell you on which outlets, what days, what time or the name of the primary speaker. (I participated in the data gathering for one of these surveys at a conference campmeeting. More than half of the people with a bulletin in their hands that included a flyer with the name of a ministry on it could not tell you the name of the ministry!) Those who did listen or watch were an exact match of the description from the 1983 NRB-Annenberg study with their primary reason for watching or listening being to reinforce or compliment what they already believed. The data also illustrated something that should be very troubling to anyone who is dedicated to spreading the Gospel: the primary impacts of media programs in the local church are: 1) convincing church members that they are somehow helping spread the Gospel in their community because the church has a program on the air in their area; and 2) giving church members an excuse for not being personally involved in spiritual outreach by claiming the program will be more effective than anything they could do.
There is a serious logic flaw flaw in your claim that the message trumps other things. The Gospel is our message and our purpose is proclaiming the Gospel. Our purpose does not define or dictate the methods, we select them. We may select one method over another based on a variety of inputs so that process allows one method to "trump" another. Media ministries are merely a few of the many tools in God's very large tool box that holds a whole lot of tools we've never learned how to use. Your support of media ministries is an emotional attachment based on a fog of perceptions that cannot be quantified, measured or tested to demonstrate effectiveness. So unless you can provide some real data to support that view there is little or no reason to consider media ministries as superior or preferable over other methods for spreading the Gospel.
God expects us to be good stewards of the resources He gives us to use in spreading the Gospel. If believing programs are producing results we cannot document, then illusion has trumped our responsibility to know what is happening. If the fog of dreamy rhetoric causes us to spend large amounts of money doing things that produce minimal results, irresponsibility and ignorance have consumed the resources that could have produced far greater results for the Kingdom of God in other ways. Worst of all, if the illusions that have grown-up around media ministries give us an excuse for not being personally involved in spreading the Gospel, then spiritual lifelessness has truly trumped the message.
Now, let me agree with you on something: "the Holy Spirit converts in every instance." I could not agree more. Now, let me ask you a couple questions. Do you know how the Holy Spirit has empowered you for ministry? Do you know what ministry the Holy Spirit wants you to be doing? Are you seeing the power of the Holy Spirit working through you? Are you seeing God use you in the ministry He has given you to bring people into the church? If you can answer those questions then there will be no fog in your ministry concepts.
Clearly I cannot say enough that we need to do more of everything Dingdong.
People are varied and a varied approach is needed to reach a diverse populace. I am advocating that we do more of everything; and that we seek creative strategies for missions and for church growth. The church has/will become increasingly less popular as we approach the end of days. It is the Holy Spirit that convicts. Our message has always been counter cultural and is doubly so as the culture becomes less receptive to spiritual things generally.
We have been entrusted with this message. The message that distinguishes us in reality is the Third Angel’s message of Revelation. The health message is also a distinguisher and should be used as a tool because it is practically good for everyone and literally good for practically everyone. Healing ministry is the tool that Jesus used. We can, and certainly should, use helping ministries and acts of love like this. Having utilized these and other creative and strategic approaches, including Danny’s ideas here, we should never underestimate the Holy Spirit’s work.
I would guess, if I can be so bold, that the Holy Spirit is not as much concerned with growing the Adventist church as He is with saving souls. We get it twisted when we think that informing people does no good unless we get them in the pool or to remain in active weekly fellowship.
People are willing to hear this message. ‘Doing’ it is often a different matter. We shouldn’t wash our hands of anyone; much less those who choose to leave. It is clearly a constant uphill battle. But again, it makes no sense to cede territory on any front at all.
Maybe you’re not arguing that we should; it just sound like it to me. It also sounds that you’re advocating that we throw the baby out with the bathwater insofar as the message is concerned. It seems so at least if the message itself is perceived by you (and William?) as “irrelevant…in style and cultural nuances.”
Hopefully I misunderstand what you are saying. (It would perhaps help if you would somehow address my argument against ceding territory.)
Corrections: …it just sounds like it to me. It also seems that you’re advocating…
Stephen,
The two things I find most amazing about ministries that are directed and empowered by the Holy Spirit are their diversity and their effectiveness. God used our personal experience to make us aware of opportunities to share His love that others might miss. I've seen many examples of this on my Angel Team projects where I've done a survey of the situation and listed the tasks we need to address only to have God move on someone's heart and they show-up prepared to do something else that I didn't even realize needed to be done. Maybe I didn't know about it because the person we were helping didn't say anything about it, but it was a critical need. I remember one such need where two women came on a project for the very first time and I soon realized they and the woman who was the object of our labors that day were dealing with something in her bedroom. To this day I have no idea what they were doing with her behind that closed door, but it soon was obvious the situation was critical to her, they met her need and she was deeply appreciative.
It isn't "the message" that it "irrelevant…in style and cultural nuances." It is our concept that the exclusive method for spreading the Gospel is preaching. Measuring the effectiveness of our preaching is as simple as comparing the growth rate in the SDA Church as compared to the growth rate of the population. Between 1995 and 2005 the combined populations of the US and Canada (North American Division territory) grew by 1,347 people for each ONE who joined the Adventist Church. That is negative net growth. But what do church leaders (and members) keep saying is the solution? More of what isn't working.
What Jesus did first, foremost and most often was improve the lives of the people He met. His approach was varied and tailored to their need. He spoke to the woman at the well about living water and her multiple husbands. He asked the paralytic beside the pool at Bethesda if he wanted to be healed. He spat in dirt and rubbed the mud on a blind man's eyes to restore his sight. The LAST thing He did was teach and He did that only after hearts had been touched and moved by His love. But what is the first thing we expect Adventist ministries to do? Preach. Since we're doing things backward from the model Jesus gave us, why are we surprised that our evangelistic efforts are so expensive and produce such limited results? In contrast, personal ministries that are guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit are very inexpensive (because God provides what you need) and very productive in growing the church. Over the past eight years I've seen my Angel Team ministry bring more people into the church than any single evangelistic campaign I've been involved with in the last 25 years and my church has never grown faster than since we quit doing public evangelistic crusades.
Perhaps to some extent we are talking cross-culturally and not realizing it, or something. For some reason 'all of the above' must not mean the same thing universally.
Carlton Byrd, when he was pastor of Berean SDA Church in Atlanta, GA, baptized over 400 people in one calendar year (2009). Debleaire Snell, pastor First SDA Church in Huntsville, AL (a much, much smaller market) has baptized 525 since July, 2010. That church soon required two Sabbath services before acquiring a much larger worship facility.
These ministries are likewise empowered by the Holy Spirit and clearly effective and productive. Both of these are preaching/teaching centered ministries. Byrd, of course, is also the speaker/director of the Breath of Life television ministry (started by Walter Arties with C.D. Brooks as the speaker, who was followed by Walter Pearson, and subsequently succeeded by Byrd). Byrd is now senior pastor at Oakwood University Church as well as BOL director/speaker.
Now they both use creative strategies in 2014, yet are both ministries featuring preaching/teaching.
Jesus’ Great Commission of Matthew 28:19 was for us to “Go…and teach all nations.” 1 Corinthians 1:17-29 makes the methodology case.
Again, I’m not sure on how “all of the above” can possibly be misunderstood; but it sure seems that you have something against preaching for some strange reason. Jesus used an ‘all of the above’ approach, depending on who He was with. Sometimes He taught by word, sometimes by deed, sometimes by both word and deed.
When Jesus fed the 5,000 he did so after he “spake unto them of the kingdom of God, and healed them that had need of healing,” Luke 9:11. Obviously different circumstances sometimes require different methods.
I don’t know how many your ‘Angel Team’ has baptized here in Huntsville since 2010, but I’d think that you’ve prepared the ground and planted seeds for sure; and that your success cannot always be quantified by numbers of people baptized alone.
We should be doing what works. Carlton Byrd will tell you a whole lot of ministering of God's love has to happen before a person is ready to respond to his preaching. I know he will tell you because I've heard him say it.
There are times and places where preaching works. But for each time and place where it works there is a great multiple of times and places where it doesn't. We have a great majority in the church who have been taught they should be just preaching, but their failure at it and the absence of God's blessing on their efforts has caused them to become frustrated. The frustration has turned into discouragement that is reflected in lots of talk about how we should be doing the preaching that God has not empowered the majority of us to do. I think this is why you talk about what we should be doing to bring people into the church but have no experience to share giving us evidence that God has been working through you or that your claims are based on experience with God's power.
God promises to empower each of us who is willing for ministry according to His wishes, not some one-size-fits-all, everybody-should-be-preaching concept. The Holy Spirit gives believers a variety of different gifts to empower them for a variety of ministries. Because God has equipped Carlton Byrd to preach should not make anyone else imagine they are gifted and empowered in the same way. Rather, we should each be seeking God's guidance to know how He has empowered us and the ministry He wants us to be doing. Success in that ministry is possible only after we stop trying to do what He hasn't called us to do.
Yes, our ultimate objective is to teach people about God. But Jesus told His disciples to first heal the sick, cast out demons, cleanse the lepers and raise the dead. He gave them that instruction because He knew such demonstrations of the power of God would create interest in what they wanted to teach. In contrast with Jesus' method, trying to teach without first demonstrating the power of God creates resistance and makes people unwilling to listen to us. So instead of breaking-down barriers to the Gospel, we're growing them and making it more difficult to teach people about God.
The Number One thing people need to learn about God is that He loves them. Ministering to their needs in ways that improve their lives does this with greater power and speed than anything else. Preaching can teach them the theory of God's love where ministry touches them with His love and changes them. I've seen acts of kindness touch hearts that knew nothing about God's love and quickly arouse a desire to know God better, sometimes in minutes. At the other end of the spectrum, we had one person a few years ago who had been so turned-off by preaching in her youth that 40 years later she hated God and regarded anyone from a church with great defensiveness and suspicion. It took several years of acts of kindness for God's love to overcome her resistance and for her to become a believer.
Do you know what ministry God wants you to be doing? Are you seeing His power leading you and working through you to improve the lives of others and grow the Kingdom of God? If not, I want to encourage you to let Him lead you into the ministry He has waiting for you.
Of course groundwork must be done in any evangelistic endeavor; and of course if and when people are ministered to in love they are more responsive to preaching/teaching. You have a stranglehold on the obvious.
(I know this is extremely hard to believe William, but this isn’t about me. As a result you will very, very seldom ever hear me talk about me.)
Anyway, I haven’t run across very many people who are delusional enough to think that they can preach or should preach. I’ve been around for a while too.
Clearly you feel that the ministry in which you are engaged is superior and more effective than is the preaching/teaching ministry. Well, it is absolutely your prerogative to feel as you wish; needless to say.
However, until you baptize 525 people in less than four years in Huntsville, AL, I would suggest that you not relegate the preaching/teaching ministry to the scrap heap.
You’d do better to not focus on me as much as considering what the Bible said about preaching; and what Jesus actually instructed us to do about teaching. Jesus didn’t “[tell] His disciples to first heal the sick, cast out demons, cleanse the lepers and raise the dead,” William. What texts do find that gives that instruction as to order, hierarchy, or priority? You’re suggesting that He told them to do all of these things before they should teach what He had told them.
Be more careful when talking about Jesus. (It shouldn’t be that important to disagree with anyone; least of all with me.)
Stephen,
Let's clarify a few things.
First, I do not relegate preaching "to the scrap heap" as you suggest. I merely put it in the perspective of it being just one calling among many ministries, but the one we have emphasized so extremely that we habitually ignore the others. The many other ministries the Holy Spirit wants us to be doing should all be active and working together.
Second, whenever you see the word "preach" in the New Testament it simply means "to proclaim." There are many ways to proclaim a message and God has equipped us to do so in many different ways. Semons have become the stereotypical definition of how to proclaim, but research shows they are the least effective method known by which to communicate spiritual themes and information leading to life changes. The single most effective means for communicating the Gospel is the method Jesus used: personal interaction that demonstrates God's love by improving the lives of others.
Third, real ministry is personal. Very personal. If you're talking theory about ministry it is because you have no experience in ministering God's love. If you're talking about the ministry of others instead of your own it is because you have no idea what ministry God wants you doing. If you're not sharing about how you've been seeing God work it is because you're not empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit.
God has promised to empower each and every believer so they can effectively minister His redeeming love. Not knowing what that ministry is yet just means you haven't let Him reveal it to you. Are you ready to let God take-over and show you the ministry He wants you to be doing?
My brother,
Your focus (?) on me misdirected, but simultaneously somewhat amusing. It never strengthens your argument(s), or whatever point(s) you are trying to make, to change the subject to me (that’s a fact).
“…research shows [sermons]…are the least effective method known by which to communicate spiritual themes and information leading to life changes.”
Needless to say, it is dubious that you will produce definitive (or any other kind of) corroborating documentation or cite sources. Even if you shocked me and did finally produce documentation, show it to Billy Graham.
“Personal interaction that demonstrates God’s love by improving the lives of others” is quite obviously phenomenally successful for communicating the Gospel. Of course no one ever disputed that.
Everything is successful—because of Isaiah 55:11. Please don’t believe that unless everyone who hears truth becomes an Adventist in the immediate aftermath of their exposure to truth, it means that the medium by which they heard truth was ineffective or deficient. Trust the Spirit of God to work. Some things happen in a way in which no one can claim any credit. Some things that are done and or said will apparently bear fruit in heaven.
It’s great if you see baptisms result from your ministry, but don’t discount anything.
Why don’t you perhaps consider going out somewhere and hearing a great sermon somewhere today! If not this afternoon, perhaps sometime soon.
We MBA-types are prone to asking hard questions like: "Is it working?" and "How well is it working?" So I'm not discounting anything. I'm just counting the results and letting the evidence speak for itself.
Why do you keep talking about the results of someone else's ministry when the Holy Spirit is given to all who believe so you can minister using the power of God? The way you keep avoiding questions about personal involvement in ministry that is directed and empowered by the Holy Spirit makes me doubt the "all who believe" includes you.
Stephen,
Exceptions do not prove a rule.
Membership at the vast majority of SDA churches in the industrialized world are shrinking. If it were not for growth among immigrant groups the membership of the church in North America would have shrunk each year since 1980. Overall the church in most countries of Europe has been shrinking steadily in the same period despite significant growth among immigrant groups. What do these churches have in common besides doctrines? Preaching as the exclusive teaching method.
So when you are pointing to one or two pastors who are preaching and baptizing significant numbers of people you're not describing the typical, common or frequent. You are describing the exceptions, the outliers and the rare. You are not proving the value of preaching but demonstrating how God is blessing only a few to use that method. This leaves the field wide-open for us to discover and begin using the power of the Holy Spirit in a multitude of other ministries.
“You are describing the exceptions, the outliers and the rare. You are not proving the value of preaching but demonstrating how God is blessing only a few to use that method.”
What would have been more accurate to say is that “God is blessing THE few WHO use that method.” I cited Snell and First SDA Church because it’s a local example William. What God is doing with First Church is happening right under your nose man.
Really man, do you doubt that when the word is delivered with God’s anointing that it can do anything but succeed? Remember that the name of the game is saving souls; and that is something only God has done, and can do. When people are taught, success will follow.
This does not mean that preaching, teaching, and proclaiming are all we should do. (I’m for a “multitude of ministries” approach.) Nor does it mean that everyone who hears and learns will necessarily respond precisely as we would wish on our timetable.
Stephen,
If you're for a "multitude of ministries approach" and God hasn't gifted you to preach, why do you keep defending preaching as if it were the primary or only way to spread the Gospel?
Thousands are preaching but God is blessing the efforts of only a very few. That should make it obvious only a very few are gifted by God to preach. Yet you keep expecting people to do what God has not gifted them to do. Is that not working directly against the will of God? Would it not be better to obey the instruction in scripture to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit so we can discover how He wants us to be ministering His love?
I’m a left-brained guy. I don’t know if you’re right-brained, or what; but I can’t figure out the way you think.
I am for a “multitude of ministries,” and/or an ‘all of the above’ approach. I understand preaching is included in ‘all.’ You don’t like preaching, or can’t preach, or don’t know of effective preachers, or haven’t heard good preaching, or haven’t seen people affected by preaching, or have Attention Deficit Disorder, or just have to disagree; but preaching, proclaiming, teaching, is by no means “working against the will of God.” Nor is the support of such ministry.
You really need to get a grip!!! Besides, how do you know that “God is blessing the efforts of only a very few,” who are preaching. What gall! How would you know who is being blessed? I am a near fundamentalist-type of Adventist, but I know better than to confuse Adventist church membership with the kingdom of God.
Everybody can’t preach; but God can and does bless efforts to deliver His word. For the umpteenth time, it’s fantastic if you are seeing success in your ministry. There is indeed a work for all—and ‘all of the above.’
As has been acknowledged, there is a significant difference in church growth patterns between white and non-white cultures in the so-called First World. I believe, and regret to say, it’s possibly because what some Seventh-day Adventists are preaching and teaching is simply not the message with which we have been entrusted. You believe it’s because preaching is ineffective. Of course you happen to be wrong. (Again, who’s to say what’s happening? People could be informed and convicted who don’t become full-fledged, official Seventh-day Adventists.) Members probably leave because of what is and is not being taught—and believed.
Stephen,
I agree with you that there are cultural differences that influence how people respond to different Gospel presentations. That beauty of ministry under the guidance and empowerment of the Holy Spirit is that He equips us to minister in ways that are relevant, not just to cultures, but to individuals. We may typify cultures according to stereotypes, there is such diversity within even cultural groups identified by race that a reasonable person must question the validity of the stereotypes. I've found in my ministry that the only consistently applicable stereotype is the dependability of God's individual attention to each of us.
I disagree with the concept that people leave the church "because of what is and is not being taught—and believed." I believe the primary reason people leave is because the church is failing to be a nurturing spiritual community with neighbors who care about each others and express the love of God in a multitude of ways and according to personal need. It is the love of God and the caring of our spiritual community that carries us through difficult times when our faith in God and our beliefs in specific doctrines are challenged. This was illustrated to me just a few weeks ago in a conversation at a church picnic. A person who was the object of one of my ministry's projects last summer shared how the love she and her husband felt that day had encouraged them at a difficult time where they had begun doubting God's love for them. What was more, the intensity of the blessing they received had spilled-over onto their two grown sons. Each was going through a difficult time with unemployment and other problems. Discouragement had kept them away from church for nearly two years but the love they saw showered on their parents that day by the church was bringing them back. This past Sabbath one of the sons was there with his wife, who has been very oppositional. The son shared with me privately that God had touched her heart through a loving act from someone who had no idea it would have such a result.
We need to be using whatever outreach methods we have wherever they work. Most of all, we each need to be discovering and developing the particular ministry the Holy Spirit wants each believer to be doing. That way we can each play a role in growing the Kingdom of God.
Carlton Byrd, when he was pastor of Berean SDA Church in Atlanta, GA, baptized over 400 people in one calendar year (2009). Debleaire Snell, pastor First SDA Church in Huntsville, AL (a much, much smaller market) has baptized 525 since July, 2010. That church soon required two Sabbath services before acquiring a much larger worship facility. – Steve.
Or omn Paupua New Guinea where 3000 were baptised in one day. I dont know enough about the cultures around the areas you mention but is is possible to baptise that many from messaged based programs if it is done well but here are my questions……
1. What culture was the audience? Cultural/ethnic communities are more suseptible to large message based programs. As in New Guinea, alot of the drive to be baptised was tribal/cultural….expected by the community. So there may have been cultural factors involved for such a large number of souls baptised. Not to mention demographics also wherby the shows only attract a certain mindset. Women, ld people and children make up the majority of the audience and baptisms with a few misfits thrown in. There are hardly any if at all blue collar types, alpha males, risk taking men – no, mainly book worm types and intellectuals if any men.
2. How many stayed in the church? From my own research, the large message based programs eventually lose two thirds of thier gains within 2 years. That means when the dust settles after all the hype, the passion is lost and the show moves on to a different area. Local churches that receive the large numbers of new strangers (because thats who most of the new chums are to the local church – strangers), there is a period of adjustment and if you dont adjust….you lose. Traditional adventist churches are generally not places you can stick around if you are innovative and entreprenerial.
3. How much moey was spent on these large shows? I have been reading lately about some of your large city campaigns as is the case here also. The figures for such extensive campaigning both in the media, venue hire and glossing I am frightened to guess – all in thge name of "you cant measure the value of a soul". Well you cant but you can also use Gods money more wisely with more sustainable results. Quick, expensive, short lived programs can get large crowds in on opening nights – was this the case with the ones mentioned? If you have 5000 turn up on opening night then 500 isnt such an unnatainable muber when it comes to the baptismal end – thats 10%. But read my article…….what about the ones who walked during the shows? What happens to them, where did they go and will they be easier to reach next time?
4. What did the large shows actually do for members and their obligatins to local ministry? So when the big show comes to town and the church is breifed on what it HAS to do…….there are very limited opportunities for ministry. Handing out brochures. letterboxing, wearing name tags and being an usher……all necessary but limited. This is opposed to smaller grass roots based ministreis where the spectrum is broad and opportunities are plenty for church members tyo find their ministry. So the "newbs" are funnelled into the pews and shown a limited scope of ministry and involvement which is why their numbers decrease over the next two years. The honey moon period is over.
Now dont get me wrong Steve, I belive in preaching as I am a preacher myself. But lately I have had to realise that it doesnt go weel with the western culture – they would rather see a sermon than hear one. Remember what grandmother said:
"Christ's method alone will give true success in reaching the people. The Saviour mingled with men as one who desired their good. He showed His sympathy for them, ministered to their needs, and won their confidence. The He bade them, 'Follow Me.'" (The Ministry of Healing, pp. 143, 144)
Thats the order that will bring the most success and long lasting effects with new comers to the faith. We dont need to hire halls and throw large sums of money at these side shows anymore is what Bill and I have been saying. To continue to do so is in defiance of logic.
The church has/will become increasingly less popular as we approach the end of days. It is the Holy Spirit that convicts. Our message has always been counter cultural and is doubly so as the culture becomes less receptive to spiritual things generally. – Stephen
Again Steve, I wonder if satan is glad when we say things like this? I talk to church lifers all the time who say similar "oh well, the world is getting more wicked every day" or "young people have so much to contend with in the way of temptation these days" or " EGW said only one in twenty will be saved" – they usually say these things when confronted with the staggering losses we are experiencing as a church.
I worry about adventist lifers who are represented to me as those in Christs time who say "the temple, the temple" and are infatuated with churchiness and our programs but live in a bubble and have no idea about the crisis the church is facing. You what Einstein said about doing the same things over and over……but thats exactly what we do as adventists till thge public are sick of rhetoric based evangelism.
Dont get me wrong, I am big on our message, you wont find a more loyal customer than me on the fundamentals, but as a cancer patient once said to me while lying there dying……"danny, there is a fine line between being positive and being in denial".
I fear that church lifers are digging in like termites for the end like the man who hid his talent for fear he would lose what he had and dissappoint his master. The problem is he, like last day adventists thought that by preserving what he had instead of risking it and trading in the wicked wicked world, would get him brownie points. The fact remains he was condemned and Jesus rewarded the risk takers who used their hands to bring blessing and gain that much needed foothld where the message could be then preached.
Dingdong,
I’m not sure if you are discussing this with me or with some other unnamed "lifers" to whom you’ve talked.
I really don’t follow how what I said about creative strategies and initiatives and varied approaches for a diverse mission populace have to do with insanely doing the same thing repeatedly or “rhetoric based evangelism.”
My citation of the undeniable reality of the environment only means that we have to do more of everything—not less. The very content of our entire message—including the uncomfortable Third Angel’s message warning—is what will/does make our church/message unpopular. As a “loyal customer…on the fundamentals” brother, you certainly understand and appreciate that reality.
If I was advocating “digging in” or a safe, no-risk strategy, or something similar, I surely would not recommend using an all of the above approach, including broadcasting! Instead, to be safe, I would recommend pulling in our horns and saying/doing nothing.
It would be great if you could draw a parallel to what you’re saying to my argument about not ceding territory. (Do we agree more than we disagree? It seems that I’m trying to agree with you? What am I missing here?)
Steve, my comments are generalisations about adventist culture and not directly targeting you. Even I was trapped in this mindset one upon a time – notice the inclusive language "we".
The thing that worries me is the line you take by seemingly falling in line with what I hear constantly – the mathematical equasion of – the world is becoming more wicked and so our message will become less popular, hence the reason our public programs have lost alot of favour. Many adventists stop right there and sit comfortable in this knowlege or as you put it "do more" – not by adopting a different strategy but by dressing up old manequins in new clothes, making our programs digital, media friendly, glossy……
Dont take it personal unless the cap fits.
I am not sure what you mean by ceding territory? Can you expand on this?
Dingdong,
Tell me what you would prefer to hear about the state of the world or the popularity of our message. We certainly should adapt accordingly to whatever extent we can without compromising the message. However it is what it is brother.
Again, what I mean by ‘ceding territory’ is abandoning or absenting ourselves from media forums and methods where other religious messages continue to frequent or have a presence—and more importantly, where others have influence.
If formats, or approaches, or styles, or speakers need to be changed—no problem. If we need to employ a variety of strategies and methods; fine with me.
What is it that you want, Dingdong? How can we agree with you man?
I prefer to hear about both the state of the world and the success of the mssage – they go hand in hand to me.
Ok, so ceding territory is not something we should do but if the Anglicans are sending someone to the moon to preach from there should we follow? I think media is great but what I see on stations like 3ABN are canned shows aimed at reconstituting adventists already sold. The blokes I know on my work site wouldnt dare turn that stuff on……its weird and boring to them. However, turn up whith some melond from your garden…..now u got their attention….
Use media, use all methods available……but stewardship aks that we be wise in this. If a store owner notices a decline in customers does he keep selling the same stuff and change the packaging? No, he gets in different ranges of product and seek to supply what interests customers.
How can you agree with me…….you dont have to, just think about what challenges I hope I have comunicated in my article and try something different fromt he tired old and expensive campaigns.
Dingdong,
Be of good courage! I recently saw the love of God melt the heart of a "lifer" and arouse in them an interest in discovering the ministry the Holy Spirit wants them to be doing. They haven't found it yet, but they're earnestly searching because they know they can't afford to go back to the spiritual emptiness of their old ways.
PS – a church "lifer" is someone who has never left the church and has been there since birth. I find this kind of adventist most resistant to change.
What are the changes you want implemented?
Starting at the Division levels we could still have the same allocation of funds for public evangelism (which is millions in my understanding), free'd up by the conferences to distribute to the churches for entreprenurial ministries and not message based programs.
The message based shows can happen in church – no huge expense and no advertisement needed as the attendees are from the smaller based ministries – friends of the church community.
For example, my local church with the conference spent 20k on a large public message based program. Opening night saw 150 non-sda's in attendance. By the second week that number had been cut by 2/3rd's to only 45 attendees. By the time it transfered to the church there were around 25 still sticking with the show. After another week it dwindled to 11 souls. Finally, the baptisms that were had who were the newb's from the show were 5. I went to the church recently and could only see 2 of those original five – thats 12mnths after the show.
For 20k, I could have bought 2 enclosed trailers and kitted them out fully into local ministry vans. This would have provided opportunities for members to be involved in their community and broken down predjudice within the comunity about christians. From those two ministries, a church would have many contacts/friends developed who could be invited to message based shows at church. the effects are sustainable growth and not fly-by-night results. Friends dont walk out on you but strangers do.
Dingdong,
I understand what you're saying. The challenge in what you describe is our standard of measure to determine the success of an effort. Public crusades produce results in a few weeks, but one of the biggest problems is that the local church is not a nurturing environment where new believers can grow so the loss rate typically is high. In contrast, alternate ministries don't produce baptisms so quickly but create a nurturing environment in the church so that those who are won typically stay and, in turn, become the best soul-winners in the church because they know how to nurture long-term spiritual growth.
Jesus told us to baptize as part of making disciples, yet we count baptisms and assume that discipleship happens. The results make it obvious that we're not doing a good job of making disciples.
Danny,
There are not many reasons for responding to Jesus' command to go and announce His Gospel to the world. Just three come to mind.
Save souls
Raise funds for securing the future of the church
Improve people's experience of their lives, pending their death and the return of Jesus.
–Since Jesus was sent to save the World, and did … which is the Gospel of Jesus … Saving souls surely is accomplished already. So 'saving souls' is not accomplished or inhibited by evangelism or the lack there of. Same with missionary projects.
–Since there was no church at the time, when Jesus asked his disciples to go to the end of the earth to announcement His Gospel, securing the financial future of the church was not a reason to announce the Gospel to the world. Indeed, the departure point for the Gospel
Commission was from the Jewish race and the destination was to the all of the world's non-Jewish cultures.
–That leaves us with just one practical reason for Jesus commanding his followers to announcement His Gospel to the world. That would be to give His followers the joy of reassuring and thereby improving people's experience of their lives until their death or until Jesus returns, as He promised.
Public announcements independent of personal encounters are fine. That said, attempting to scare people into checking out the rest of the story at an 'evangelistic' meeting is antithetical to the Gospel. Bait and switch is a violation of truthfulness, the issue of which we believe is at the core of the Great Controversy and therefore has no place in the Gospel presentation. There is no end that justifies any violation of God's character in announcing the Gospel. But I digress.
The Gospel is good news. And we will do well to discard any remnants of historical Seventh-day Adventist beliefs that fail the Good News test, not as come cosmic error, but as no longer relevant.
Furthermore making the Good News in any way conditional on membership in a church is historically Catholic, with the capital C, or perhaps Muslim with a capital M.
So what is the measure of the Gospel presentation?
The measure is the personal reliance of believers on the promise of Jesus rather than their own achievements or efforts to secure eternal life.
The prism of the Three Angels Message is pretty clear.
Remember, the first angel announces the Gospel of Jesus, and the second angel announces its results: Babylon falls. When people realize that the fornication-like fleeting nature of the comfort they felt under the spell of Babylon's claim that salvation is in the person's own hands, when the Gospel of Jesus puts the lie to Babylon's false claim, people are left with a hangover of such bitterness that Babylon falls.
And the third angel describes the aftermath. We see it everywhere, do we not? This description is not designed to scare people, but to encourage people who have embraced the Gospel to be mindful of from where them have come, and their reason for rejoicing.
Remember, Revelation is not the revelation of the future only or even primarily, as the leading Seventh-day Adventist Revelation scholar, Jon Pauline, notes in the introduction to his meditational book, The Gospel from Patmos. Revelation is the Revelation of Jesus … the one and same Gospel of Jesus, the Good News of Jesus as revealed to and written by John to those who have already received the Gospel of Jesus, whether years ago, or yesterday, in his day or our day.
I'm sharing this not as either an advocate or an apologist, but as simply sharing my personal reaction in response to your stimulating article and to the contributions of its other respondents here.
Bill,
Can't disagree with a single word. Still, I think you're overlooking something fundamental: people don't know that God loves them. The "good news" in the Gospel is that God loves you; so much that he was willing to pay the penalty for sin so we could be redeemed; so much that He has promised to forgive us, so much that He showers us with good things to make us happy; so much that He wants to be close to us all the time; so much that He has promised to live inside us.
Our biggest evangelism challenge is that we don't lead people to falling in love with God first. Instead we try to teach them a list of doctrines before they love the God who wants them to keep the Sabbath, quit eating meat, etc. Non-preaching ministries are marvelously successful at teaching people that God loves them because they are focused on demonstrating God's love. The biggest hurdle I see in adopting and supporting such ministries is that we've taught people for so long the ONLY way to bring people into the church is through public crusades so they define everything else as wrong. Fortunately, I'm seeing growing numbers of people embracing alternate ministries because they see public evangelism as a prohibitively expensive failure.
Bill,
You have certainly identified one of the most potent values of 'non-preaching' ministries. So how do we address the tendency to down play the 'social' gospel because it inadequately addresses the 'full' Gospel, as measured by membership accessions.
Should not the Gospel directly result in a growing community?
Though it was a literal gift of a loaf of bread being a key moment in how I came to be a Seventh-day Adventist, somewhere between the gift of a (proverbial) loaf of bread and becoming a member of a Christian community, something has to happen.
And what is that?
My sense is that what happens in between may not be dependent on 'non-preaching' ministries at all, though such ministries are likely to flourish in such an environment.
I'm thinking of direct personal testimonies in contrast to organized anything.
Every marketer worth half their salary will tell you that the gold standard in terms of influence is 'word of mouth.'
Meanwhile our church structure has brought us to the point where it actively mutes personal testimony. And how do we mute such testimony? By offering classes in how to give a Bible study. Or employing a Bible worker for the church. Or bringing an evangelist to town. Or promoting broadcast or print or online ministries. Or asking for offerings for missions or evangelism.
Personal testifying is a lost experience. Since a child in the 50's a 'testimony' service element has consistently been such an emotional drag. You remember? They almost always devolved into gratitude for not feeling worse, a strained recounting of a prayer possibly answered, or a little vignette of a vending-machine experience with God.
That isn't the Gospel.
When the church community is hosting testimony services that enrich, engage, inspire, and enlighten in the context of our very present lives, what else do we really need? You think the pews would fill?
Absent this, has the church actually experienced the Gospel? Until this, we are living in Babylon awaiting the First Angel don't you think?
I totally agree with you about the need for testimonies. There is no more powerful tool for teaching people about God's love and power than testimonies about encounters with God's love and power. I think the reason we hear so few testimonies today and are so amazed when we do is because we're so focused on being right about God that we've forgotten how to have a relationship with the One who is powerful.
Some months ago I noticed in the church bulletin that our speaker for the worship service was a young mother whom I never would have imagined would speak at church. She shared her story about having grown-up in absolutely horrible conditions that could leave a person imagining she was scarred for life in ways that would make her hate God. But the core of her story was how God touched her andchanged her life in many ways. Her testimony was one of the most inspiring things I've heard in ages. There's no way the church could escape being changed after hearing more stories like that.
Thanks Bill, there is alot i can agree with there. I suppose the Revelation of Jesus is alot broader than what he done on the cross…….but extends to what he will do in the future – of that we must preach also…..
Dingdong … In what way do you see the future work of Jesus as in any way adding to what was finished by His life, death, and resurection. Seeing some future work of Jesus seems to be an effort to make room for us to play a part and thus make our life meantingful. Maybe?
Second coming, judgement/mediation, eternal life/reward, health/body temple of the lord……..the list goes on…..
Maybe we have some agreement on some things. Large message based programs wherein halls are hired (or they’re conducted in churches) are more effective in ethnic communities (and 'markets'); and they are indeed somewhat anachronistic.
Of course by “ethnic” we mean non-white. There is no question but that the Seventh-day Adventist church is rapidly becoming increasingly non-white in various parts of the globe; and especially in the so-called First World. This may be where our ‘disconnect’ is.
About a third of Adventist in North America are of African descent. My understanding is that another perhaps 15% are Hispanic. Obviously that is rather widely disproportionate to the general population’s percentages of demographic composition. This isn’t as it has always been.
I also understand that the same ‘growth’ pattern exists in both Europe and Australia. So obviously, if public “message based programs” represent the norm, or the most prevalent method of evangelism by Caucasian Seventh-day Adventists, I can understand some of your frustration.
However I also believe that the apparent lack of retention of young/most white people has something to do with sermonic messaging. Might it possibly also have something to do with what is, or isn’t being emphasized at a few colleges and universities? Might it possibly have something to do with what is or is not believed?
They have this problem of which you speak in the UK where around 10% of the population are black but in the churches its around 90% – so the church has ceased appealing to its white population and gone the easy cultural line attracting those who are already from a heavy religious background….
Here’s the thing Danny, what the ‘solution’ to this ‘problem’ will end up being—and what I see already in full force—is that doctrinal changes are ‘encouraged.’
I think we kid ourselves if we deny that what Adventism espouses appears no longer attractive to ‘First World’ Caucasian Adventists. That is why it is seldom preached/taught/believed. That is why they are effectively leaving.
It’s hard to say, but it’s true.
Thats sounds like an "old guard" answer Steve which usually is loaded with fear about the teachings of the church being changed, jesuits coming in and apostracy reigning everywhere. I am not saying this wont happen but the issue of why our churches in the west are stagnant is not a theological one and may in fact be because we value out theology over people.
If the adventist church is any reflection of the ancient jews at the time of Christs birth (and I think there is very good reason to paralell both cultures), then it was not theology that eneded up being the big issue. It was self righteousness, self sufficiency, hard heartedness to outsiders and a loss of passion for the lost – thats adventism in a nutshell in my country.
The issue of the church not being attractive to the average white western male between the ages of 25-35 (the most endangered species), is one of irrelevance to those who are not religious or who may bring challenge to the culture. Thats why we have ethnic churches thriving and eclipsing the fact that the church has failed to reach the larger percentages of nationals going the easy path filling up with immigrants which gives the impression of success.
Its not the message (whichg is great), its the culture, the way it is portrayted, the lack of compassion and involvement that makes a great message fall to the ground and become fruitless. We can argue all day and blame the receiver, the wicked world, the resistant heart but in the end, we all need to aks ourselves……."did I take the easy way out and offer prayer when I could have done something concrete to help that person?" Did I choose to be smug and walk on when that person didnt take to the sabbath doctrine I was sharing with them. Did I actually engage in a ministry that was more than greeting/welcoming people who came to me but one that went out and met people where they are?
May God help us open our eyse to the selfishness of our ways and see the great need to engage the public on a much more deeper level that the Gospel may not be made a mockery anymore.
It might really help our dialogue Danny if you would somehow resist the temptation to stereotype my statements (“sounds like an ’old guard’ answer…which is usually loaded with fear,” “seemingly falling in line with what I hear constantly,” “many Adventists stop right there,” “church lifers…who say similar,” “I heard similar statements in my own church from people who feel that when people don’t turn up at church, it’s their fault,” etc.) and instead deal with what I say in isolation.
If what I am saying is inaccurate, then by all means please identify the inaccuracies upon finding them. But restating what others have said—that I haven’t said—and then refuting their statements does not address what I’ve said. (This may be why you don’t seem to recognize when I’m agreeing with you.)
There is a cultural challenge with ‘reaching’ young males in Western cultures all over, and particularly perhaps with white young males. I do not disagree with that assessment. As it happens, I don’t even necessarily disagree with the reasons you have identified.
But again, we cannot discount the reality that the theological construct from which Adventism operates is itself counter cultural in aspects. Multiple things can be true simultaneously, mate.
What’s happening with regard to calls for us to change our theology is undeniable. This is not “fear” Danny, it’s fact.
We need to do what works, know where it works and not try to use it where we know it doesn't work. The New Testament model for evangelism is each believer being empowered by the Holy Spirit to minister in the ways God wants them to be working for Him. When that happens we won't be able to build churches fast enough.
I am not steriotyping you Steve, just giving you feedback as to what I seem to be hearing from you and likening it to what I hear regularly – I can only go by what you are saying. If the cap doesnt fit….if then dont worry about it…..its obviously not where you are comning from. I am yet to understand where you are coming from fully but have a vague idea……need more discussion I think.
There is a cultural challenge with ‘reaching’ young males in Western cultures all over, and particularly perhaps with white young males. – Steve
Yes and no. There are alot of areas that have successfully engaged western young males……armed forces, sports clubs, outdoor activities, certain careers etc…..they are not diseased and unfixable – if society or the church fails to reach them then it is not their masculinity that is at fault – it may be the medium used.
Men are deeply religious, even more so than women (see bible). There are in fact churches now in the US where they attract swathes of men and their families by focussing on what makes men interested as opposed to the feminine style we offer as a church.
I agree that multiple things can be true similtaneously, but there is usually more truth in one than the other. For me, what has happened before will happen again and the life of Jesus is an example of that. The danger lies in self righteousness and will always trump apostacy as something to be worried about int he last days. False teachers will come but their craft will be unbder the guise of holiness – thats the killer right there.
So when adventists start emphasising doctrine, concentrating on the pope and jesuits, naval gazing and always bemoaning how the world has entered the church and apostacy is imminent….all the while doing nothing but offering lip service to the masses of lost……that rings alarm bells for me and always will.
I think I get now (I’m slow).
We have been talking about our church. So when I said there is a cultural challenge with reaching young males all over, I meant that our church has a cultural challenge in reaching them, everywhere. We have a challenge competing with culture (or more specifically, competing with popular culture). I apologize for not having particularly specified that which would have made that clearer.
But I say that I think I get it, because I see that you actually would like us to focus/emphasize on things other than our beliefs/doctrine. The radical Protestantism that our prophetic message partially represents is relevant in a time of messages that Martin Luther’s protest is essentially finished. Living a lifestyle according to Biblical principles certainly isn’t unmanly or feminine in a time when the homosexual lifestyle is being advocated as conditionally OK for Christians.
There are plenty of occasions and circumstances and situations where it is absolutely inappropriate to focus or emphasize our doctrinal beliefs. But as we rapidly approach the climax, we will be increasingly faced with them. (That fact alone represents a doctrinal understanding.)
I’d say that I have written far too much for anyone who frequents this site to not know where I’m coming from; but more dialogue is generally often helpful. But it is not helpful to restate what others have said when you are discussing this with me; and not others. That’s why I wondered earlier on this thread “I’m not sure if you are discussing this with me or with some other unnamed ‘lifers’ to whom you’ve talked.”
I try to choose my words carefully and accept the challenge of defending them. I am not equipped to defend the words of others when you are conversing with me and responding to my statements. That’s why it helps when you isolate something I’ve written as you have done; but it doesn’t help to paraphrase others, when you are challenging something I’ve written.
I am lost. My bible doesn't say what yours appears to say in Matt 25:15. It sounds like a great verse, but who said it.