Importing Multinational Pastors: Helping or Hurting the Church?
By Danny Bell, November 26, 2014: Graduation was imminent and there was an excitement about campus. We were graduating as a special group – with a Bachelor of Theology degree. We were going to be pastors! All our hard work had finally paid off, as we anxiously sat on the “bench” waiting for the “call” – unfortunately, the call never came for many….what went wrong?
The year was 1995, and the rumour coming from many conferences was that placements were thin, as there were too many graduates to fill the few available positions. Technically, this was correct, but later we learned that many multinational pastors from other countries were “imported” by conferences at the same time graduates from Avondale College came off the rank.
Conferences eager to get experienced or novelty pastors put out calls to overseas Unions, inviting them to come and be on the team to inject something different or new into what was (and still is) a dire situation in Australia. This left graduates an anxious wait, often forcing them to take voluntary positions or move overseas to countries not of their origin.
A few multinational graduates were on the bench with us but got snapped up quickly, while homegrown boys were left wondering when it would be their turn. We were happy for our multinational colleagues and wished them well in their new placements but then settled back down for another long wait. My call came through eventually, but as I walked away I remember looking back at my mates patiently waiting, wringing their hands trying to remain positive. I felt sad – these were good guys. We later learned that some got calls; some didn’t. Some had gone home devastated and disillusioned.
This is the first negative impact I could see of multi-national pastors being placed into Australian churches. The claim that there were no positions was not entirely true. If not for the stream of imported pastors from other countries, our Union would have had more than enough positions for Australian graduates. With more positions available, some who temporarily left ministry might have been able to return.
If you do a “church crawl” in Sydney or any major capital in Australia you will be hard pressed to find a church that does not have a multinational pastor. Australia has had large increases in immigration recently, and all the new arrivals need ministering to, but what impact does importing multinational pastors have on average Australians1 when it comes to attracting them? When an average Australian visits a church for the first time, will it be possible for her to find an Australian pastor, at a time when third world ethnic percentages are a small minority in our country?
Adventists welcome multinational pastors and have high regard for the excellent work they do but how will average non-Adventist Australians feel when they walk into a congregation made up largely of Africans, Spanish or Tongans? Many of these churches also reflect the pastors’ culture of origin, which leads to the question: Was it the intent of the church to go down this path? or did it just happen?
The problem is not isolated to Australia or the Adventist church. Evidence suggests that in the United States2 and United Kingdom3, churches have a problem identifying with their community, while creating cultural ghettos within congregations. Part of the argument centres on pastors being called to churches outside of their normal cultural context. Placing a pastor in a church not of his own culture can have unforeseen side effects, including keeping away the community the church is trying to reach. For instance, imagine sending an Australian pastor to China or Russia and slapping him bang in the middle of a foreign congregation. This may appear to work with evangelistic efforts (although evidence suggests these communities don’t warm to foreign imports), but in the West it has resulted in congregations’ not accurately representing their local community.
We can’t coldly say (although it has been said), “Too bad; people just have to learn to ‘fit in’ and not be so racist.” This is not about racism but about balance and the community’s perceptions. We as Adventists may feel excited about the diversity in our church as multinationals flood in and take up positions in the pews – the church is alive, right? Isn’t God about “red and yellow, black and white, all are precious in his sight”? Yes, He is, but the church’s creation of a cultural eddy that doesn’t reflect the wider community can isolate nationals who feel that the church is irrelevant to their context.
When a neighbour attends church for the first time he may be shocked to see so many ethnics, wondering if he has just walked into a local culture club – he might as well be in another country. We need to beware of what is happening to our churches, putting more effort into making sure they reflect the wider community. We should shy away from creating environments that will make first time visitors find our worship strange or feel they don’t belong. Churches that target certain cultural groups are needed but when average churches morph multicultural (usually hailed as a sign of success) without forethought, their outreach and relevancy in the local community can be negatively impacted.
I have written before about problems that result when churches turn ethnic;4 how this may appear like success on the surface, and how a church can be keeping away the wider national born population. An overrepresentation of multinationals in a local church, when multinationals make up only a small percentage of that community, may work against us. Importing pastors from other countries exacerbates the situation. In the United Kingdom, in the Adventist church the British nationals are largely marginalised and going unreached. Most churches have experienced what is called “white flight,” where churches that once reflected the surrounding community have “turned” and become multi-ethnic and irrelevant to majority Brits.
In our excitement to see the church fill with different cultures, have we forgotten that the average Australian needs saving too? Is the best pastor to minister to average Australians going to be multinational or Australian? Is the fact that churches are filling up a convenient cover-up of the very real and present disaster we are having in terms of growth?
This presents a dilemma, I admit, because many inner city suburbs have concentrations of ethnicity who need reaching. But we could ask; if you come to live in Australia, wouldn’t you expect that your local pastor would probably be Australian? Just as if I went to Africa, I would expect my local pastor to be African and not Australian (as nice as that may be). But here’s the thing: Have suburban mainline churches that once ministered to average Australians “turned” as a result of continuing to send in multinational pastors?
Pastoral mismatch is a phenomenon that reflects a deeper issue that goes beyond conference committee tasks of just matching pastoral personalities with churches; the matching may need to include nationality. Some may label this approach as racism. Australian Adventists who suggest matching nationality are not against other races; they are making a serious attempt to deal with a problem that is crippling our ability to reach an ever more distant Australian culture.
Negatives for churches that have elected to have multinational pastors fall into a few categories:
- Language Barriers – congregants (and visitors) complain that they can barely understand their pastor when he preaches or teaches. This can be detrimental to the hearing of the message, and be off-putting to visitors who speak English well and expect professional standards from clergy.
- Cultural Nuances – again, this can result in offenses occurring both ways. The congregants’ cultural differences can often clash with the pastors, and vice versa. Pastoral mismatch can end in disaster, with churches splitting and conferences bearing the brunt of the fallout.
- Theological Persuasions – pastors from Eastern Europe, for example, are very conservative in their theology and and in the application of their religion. Unwittingly, they can impose their styles of worship and dress standards on a more progressive congregation, being totally unaware of the context of the local congregation. This has led to churches and families going through untold hurt, with collateral damage to the community of faith.
- Fiscal Outlook – pastors who come from poorer countries may be reluctant to spend money on church outreach. On the other hand, some pastors who come from virtual poverty to huge financial opportunities and perks in a western church pay system n do harm to themselves and their families, making financial decisions that shock congregants and onlookers.
- Multicultural Influx – as mentioned above, this can be seen as a good thing for outreach purposes to a particular minority culture but can also repel the majority culture in a community. Average Australian seekers looking for an Adventist church are often startled to find a high concentration of ethnic members upon entering the building. This in turn may cause them to feel uncomfortable; after all, they don’t see the same representation reflected in their neighbourhood. They are not being racist but may genuinely have a disconnect experience the same as would happen in another country if a person walked in off the street to find a church full of Australians.
Decisions to import and place pastors into contexts that do not reflect the cultural origins of the pastor may be harming the work of the church and isolating the pastor and his family when the grafting process does not take. There is room in Australia for a multinational approach in reaching particular ethnic areas but let this not be at the expense of average Australians who deserve to be reached in their own community context and not be kept away by our insistence on cultural diversity. The men sitting on the bench and those having a break from ministry can be a ready supply for giving churches what they need to reach Australians and bring us out of the growth crisis.
1Despite Australia’s cultural diversity and long history of immigration, the average Australian was born in Australia, and so were both of his parents. In 2011, nearly three quarters of people (74%) were born in Australia, and more than half (54%) had both their parents born in Australia – Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011.
4https://atoday.org/churches-filling-with-ethnic-members-not-necessarily-a-sign-of-health.html
Excellent article Danny. Really saying what many of us are thinking but too worried about only admitting, for fear of people labelled something unpleasant. Everything you say is so true, in both Australia (my nationality) and in the UK (where I lived for a year in 2010).
There are so many really interesting points in your article here, I don't think I'll be able to stop myself making multiple comments. And each of your points deserve separate comment and further teasing out.
I agree with the majority of the article which is a first since it was written by Danny! What Danny says makes a lot of sense and has a premise which I hold dear – a local congregation should be representative of the local community. I was Personal Ministries director here in Zimbabwe in a predominately white neighbourhood and I realised that our church did not even have one white member, no exaggeration! I proposed that we split the church (All churched in my country were getting split that year anyway) along racial language lines. We talked to pastors and conference leaders of how we could reach the white community in Zimbabwe especially as we are the largest denomination in the country.
The conferences decided to create "white churches" were a white pastor was to minister and evangelise to them and black people were told not to needlessly attend there. There was opposition as you would expect with accusations of of church sposored racism and the likes. I argued that even if some of the whites were racist, is it not better to first give them the gospel first and the racism would disappear rather that trying to expel the racism without Christ. The conference decided to go forward with the resolution and as we speak work is underway to effect theses churches.
That being said, we have have to acknowledge a sad truth. White affluent people are less likely to be interested in church regardless of whether the church is liberal, conservative etc. Some have argued that if the church were more liberal more whites would come but this has shown to be false as traditional churches/denomination still grow faster than liberal ones. I do not know why the phenomenon is as it is but maybe you could help shed light on that?
Tapiwa I totally agree with everything you have said.
I'm not entirely sure why white affluent people are less likely to be interested in church. However, I suspect whatever they are currently doing in the UK and Europe, and to a lesser extent US, is clearly not working. Creating ethnic Adventist ghettos totally removed from the majority population is not something we should be proud of.
Re the 'white churches' I admit it is a really difficult issue. My own local church is actually very multi-cultural: we actually have quite a large African mix now at about 20-30% and it works well. No one group seems to dominate and our local church roughly mirrors the majority population of Australia, which is quite multi-cultural.
But in other situations, like the one you described, something more drastic might be required. I admire the way you were prepared to try and adopt a new approach to this one. These issues are never easy, and the solution is never that simple.
Wow, there is the answer right there Tapiwa….yes brilliant…
"Cultural Nuances – again, this can result in offenses occurring both ways. The congregants’ cultural differences can often clash with the pastors, and vice versa. Pastoral mismatch can end in disaster, with churches splitting and conferences bearing the brunt of the fallout."
This is a massive problem. As we have discussed, Australia has a really egalitarian culture, where you don't lord it over others, which even has a special name "tall poppey syndrome". As a small illustration of that, when an Australian man catches a taxi, you don't normally sit in the back because that makes the taxi driver seem like your servant. Instead, it is an unspoken rule that you sit up front next to the taxi driver, as if you're friends – even though you've never met before.
It is actually very Christian when you think about it. We're a country where people call the Prime Minister by their first name, not "Mr Prime Minister" like Americans do with "Mr President".
If I think of my local church and some neighbouring ones I know best, the hardest thing for an overseas immigrant pastor is this egalitarianism. Many come from cultures (usually in the Developing World) where being a pastor is akin to being akin to some tribal leader. Pastors' wives actually struggle the most, given they are not afforded the "First Lady Status" they are probably used to. They are again often all called by their first name and not the title "Pastor" and many of the congregation are likely to ignore their advice or counsel.
It isn't a case of which culture is "better" (although I think my Aussie one is) but just a mismatch of cultural backgrounds. When we recently had two overseas pastors, with no one to culturally "translate", it was a real struggle for both of them (and their wives).
I agre with everything you have said Steve 100%.
Not only the 'tall poppy syndrome' Steve but a host of other cultural differences makes importing a multicultural pastor (MCP),too much of a risk.
Our larakenism and casual dress clashes concervative cultures like the African Adventists. I know in my own hometown church where it has "turned" there are elders who regularly slap kids on the back of the head if they are playing up……it may work in Africa but some parents who are visitors are horrified. Nobody can preach ot take up the offering without wearing a tie…..its like stepping into a time warp.
"Fiscal Outlook – pastors who come from poorer countries may be reluctant to spend money on church outreach. On the other hand, some pastors who come from virtual poverty to huge financial opportunities and perks in a western church pay system n do harm to themselves and their families, making financial decisions that shock congregants and onlookers."
Seen this as well. There might be a temptation to use what otherwise seems like massive reserves in Church funds to pay for what otherwise seems like a good cause, such as an ex gratia payment to another Adventist minister just because they are a minister, even though they have nothing to do with this congregation. Or a pastor expecting extra payment for something other congregants otherwise do for free? Again, mainly cultural misunderstandings.
When in ministry we saw this alot in particular with NZ and Tongan ministers.
When the church offered them vehicle deals, credit cards and other perks many became overcommitted and put their families in huge debt. My wife and I were more careful and experienced in the temptations of credit cards and putting thinsg on payment systems…you learn this quickly in Australia as almost everyone has been stung by credit debt.
Not the multinationals however, they saw all the perks as some sort of 'disney land' and signed up for everything they could get, turning up at church with brand new cars, clothes and the latest gadgets….you could se them grinning from ear to ear on sabbath mornings and in sad twist they then began exhibitioning their new gotten wealth as I think some of their cultures show more respect to the wealthy man…they were proud of what they had acheived…..frightening to watch….
"Multicultural Influx – as mentioned above, this can be seen as a good thing for outreach purposes to a particular minority culture but can also repel the majority culture in a community. Average Australian seekers looking for an Adventist church are often startled to find a high concentration of ethnic members upon entering the building. This in turn may cause them to feel uncomfortable; after all, they don’t see the same representation reflected in their neighbourhood. They are not being racist but may genuinely have a disconnect experience the same as would happen in another country if a person walked in off the street to find a church full of Australians."
Seen this as well. It's worse in the UK and Europe but Australia isn't far behind. I went to several Adventist churches in the UK and to be brutally honest, they were almost all black. No "indigenous" white people at all! I was already an Adventist and I felt a little off-put, if I can be honest about it, so I can't imagine it would be much attraction to "indigenous" white English people.
On questions of racism, if there can be standalone Spanish, Romanian, Samoan, Carribean, Korean and Chineese churches in Australia, UK and Europe (not sure about the US), to make those minorities feel comfortable, at what point can the Adventist white population (now often a minority within Adventism) create its own standalone ethnic churches? Is that racist? I don't know, but it is a thorny issue.
In the UK and Europe, "indigenous" whites are now clearly the minority within Adventism. They clearly need their own white churches just as much as any Chineese, Korean, Spanish or Korean does in those countries. A difficult question but elephant in the room of Adventist evangelism in the UK and Europe?
Yes, I have written extensively in my publication 'The Mashup' about the UK……what an absolute mess….I receive the UK Adventist news and all the photos from camp meetings to local church events are as you describe……wall to wall black faces…..hardly any white if at all……I am astonished….especially when the population of cvoloured people is only a small percentage….these churches have "turned" and just rolled over without thinking of the consequences……its too late to chaneg them back…..new ones need to be established……
……(continuing)…….the answer I think lies in the demographics of a community. If it has high immigrant, ethnic concentrations then set up an outreach to minister to those groups. But if the population is mainly indigenous then the church should reflect that and the pastor as well…it wont work otherwise. Conferences placing pastors into churche sshould consider the demographics of the surrounding community. If the church has already "morphed multicultural" – then another church should be established in that area with a specific charter to stay representative and target the larger culture.
My dad who is a "fringee", wont attend church anymore because he cant "understand the pastor"…yes he is old school but its still a tragic loss of a bloke who's family served our country in the war and as he put it…"we spilled our blood to keep this stuff out" (meanng all the cultural changes affecting our contry)….the church he attended with my mum is a classic case of a church "turning" and so what a travesty that average men like my dad feels isolated from his own culture in his own country in a church that once had mainly white faces refecting the majority population about it….
"Graduation was imminent and there was an excitement about campus. We were graduating as a special group – with a Bachelor of Theology degree. We were going to be pastors! All our hard work had finally paid off, as we anxiously sat on the “bench” waiting for the “call” – unfortunately, the call never came for many….what went wrong?"
This I just find disgusting and morally wrong. In the Australian Army, it too has a 'funnel system' where a majority of people drop out. But if you make it through Duntroon (Australia's West Point), and if by some miracle there is a slightly higher number of graduates that year, they ALL get a posting – not exception. They then adjust intakes for future years.
It is completely immoral that young men (and women) believe they have a "calling", then spend tens of thousands of dollars paying Adventist institutions to train them, only to be told later: "Sorry, no job for you, maybe you were wrong about that calling?"
And if part of the reason the young theology graduate didn't get a job was because the Conference or Union imported someone from overseas, well that is just attrocious. And if I hadn't seen just that happen before my very eyes, not once but several times in the last few years, then I probably wouldn't believe Church officials would stoop so low.
Yeah Steve, very sad…..I still feel hollow in my gut when I think about it. I am in touch with many ex-pastors who suffered in the system but none are sadder than the ones who were sent to their demise in isolated outback mining towns with no mentors because a conference had no room in the inner cities because they were "importing"…this is such a huge problem and is beyond my scope to help except to write about it….I dont think i want to get started here…there is not enuff room…
'They are not being racist but may genuinely have a disconnect experience the same as would happen in another country if a person walked in off the street to find a church full of Australians.'
Read Acts 6. The Seven (elders/deacons) like Stephen were appointed because the Palestinian-Jewish-Christians were accused of discriminating against the Hellenized-Jewish-Christians in caring for widows. Stephen was appointed precisely to minister to his own Hellenized-Jewish-Christian sub-community. The apostles recognise the principle Danny is now talking about.
Good point Steve……sounds like you could write something…..send me an email anytimemc@bigpond.com
Yes, Danny, great piece.
Unfortunately terms likd "racist", and "biggot" are used too often here in Australia to shut down legitimate and badly needed discussion about many issues inside and outside the church.
Political correctness is tyranny with manners…..yes agree…huge problem in western countries…..the end I fear Chris is that we shall all be funneled into it if we like it or not…
Immigration, both legal and illegal are ruining the USA, UK, France and perhaps dozens of other countries. They are swamping the medical and welfare programs. Generally they don't integrate, nor are assimilated in to our cultures. The criminal element is huge. They demand and get perks denied natives. They ghettoize and vote in blocks. There are several Islamics in Congress, demanding Sharia Law for their dictricts. This along with illegal entries of over 12 million Hispanics has truly changed the face of America. Supposedly Obama says he will grant domicile for these Illegals, outside of Congressional approval. Who do you think they will vote for?? The Taxpayers are paying for all priviledges for approx half of these illegals.
Earl I don't have a problem with immigration at all. I even think if say there is a sizeable new ethnic community, and if they want their own church in their own language and reflecting their own culture, then good for them. In Australia at least, there are plenty of Spanish, Samoan, Chinese, Korean and other ethnic-specific churches (Adventist and non-Adventist).
What gets really dangerous is when those minority ethnic churches in effect displace the 'mainstream' culture, both within and outside the church. If the Adventist church in Australia or America becomes dominated by clergy imported through immigration, then how are they going to reach the dominant 'mainstream' culture? They can't and they won't.
I have spent some time in both the UK and France. In both countries the Adventist communities are almost entirely black – I'd say 80-90%. I'd be ok with that if that refelcted those countries demographics overall, but the inverse is probably true with only 10-20% black. So that in effect means the majority of the population are not being reached by the gospel.
Political correctness is in effect is hindering the spreading of the gospel to the majority 'mainstream' populations in UK, Europe and Australia, which is to say 'white'. To even mention that factual reality is likely to have one branded a racist, although no one thinks it is racist for the Chinese Adventist community to have their own Church in their own language. I suspect with the way the US is going, it will soon be the same for you too.
There is a huge debate and uprising in Australia at the moment Earl about immigration, Islam, terrorism and a host of other things connected to them….Australians are taking the que from the UK and the US and are starting to rise up and say we dont want outr country to be truned into a cesspool like the middle east or other 3rd world countries……sharia law comes to mind and it frightens us….
I just wonder where this is all going to end…are we returning to the days of barbarism, begeadings, infiltration by Islam (the king of the south)? Is this what the end is going to look like?
Immigration, both legal and illegal are ruining the USA, UK, France and perhaps dozens of other countries.
They said the same thing a century ago about immigrants Southern and Eastern Europe. And before that about immigrants from Central Europe. And before that about immigrants from Scotland and Ireland.
And the Native Americans (whose ancestors came from Asia) about immigrants from France and England and Portugal and Spain. And the Canaanites about those immigrants from Mesopotamia. And the Polynesians about the Europeans and the Asians.
Whether you go with the Biblical account or secular ethnography, very few people groups in the world live where their ancestors originally came from. And many if not most of these great migrations were "illegal". And they DID ruin many of the places where they migrated. And they DID make new nations great and small where they migrated.
Not to mention when the Franks invaded Gaul, displacing the Romans who had previously invaded Gaul. Or when the Visigoths invaded Portugal and Spain, displacing the Moors who had previously invaded Portugal and Spain. Or when the Normans invaded England, displacing the Agles and Saxons who had previously invaded Engalnd, displacing the Romans. There are very few corners of Europe that are still inhabited by the same people groups who lived there 3,000 years ago.
Earl,
Here is the solution to your problem 8-):
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/a-dramatic-solution-for-illegal-immigration/article_7d06c294-c020-11e3-bd11-001a4bcf887a.html
Those in the USA who abhor the notion of immigration might want to recall that roughly 1/4 of our territory came from England, 1/4 from France, 1/4 from Spain (via Mexico) and 1/4 from Russia. Not to mention that we tried twice (and failed) to annex much of what is now Canada.
The leftovers are a few states (Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Idaho) that we took directly from the Natives as opposed to their later colonial masters.
Edwin Dyga in The Future of Australian Conservativism, describes the liberal, multiculturalism of Australia (and US/UK) among many other points, as below. One can see similarities with what Danny talks about:
"For the domestic policy (Church?) analyst, the result of this liberal (tollerant/welcoming/biased) hypocrisy should be obvious: a “society” (Church?) where certain groups are permitted strong identitarian attitudes but do not necessarily share in the historical legacies of the host, and a host which is effectively subordinated and deracinated (diss-enfranchised?) of any sense of unique corporate personality. The problem here is that this represents a “society” (Church?) which is divided by two diametrically opposed psychological forces, and it is difficult to imagine how this model can find a peaceful equilibrium."
The entire article is well worth the read; long, but informative. Danny, you'll especially identify with his section about the male disenfranchisment, but perhaps not his caution against caricaturised notions of chivalry.
Source: http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/10/future-australian-conservatism/
Very interesting Chris…I wish those academics would speak english but….
"We as Adventists may feel excited about the diversity in our church as multinationals flood in and take up positions in the pews …"
In my view this controversial notion of diversity is the product of academia with no known basis in fact. Sure it's good to know about other cultures; no problem there. But to fill pastoral vacancies with persons, in USA, who can hardly speak English well enough to be understood is not defensible. I well recall a situation in the local area where it was difficult to understand the associate Pastor. How can that be justified?
Maranatha
Danny,
I think you're having trouble seeing the forest for all the trees. Church leaders have attempted to fix a serious problem by doing something different while failing to recognize and deal with the real problem. You're much closer to the situation than I am so I'll let you analyze what the "dire situation" was that you mentioned. Until that situation is recognized for its true nature and dealt with the problems in the church will just spread and grow.
I know what you are doing works Bill and basically that is my base camp too. However, I feel this may even happen in a well intentioned quest as yours if we are not aware of it and in particular have a pastor that is mismatched with the culture he is trying to reach.
Perhaps does the situation you describe illustrate how desperate the underlying problem has become in the church? Is the importation of multi-national pastors the problem, or merely a symptom of the problem? Do you understand the root problem well enough to be willing to let God make the needed changes in you so He can work through you to bring about effective change?
I am agreeing with you Bill that the basis of all "non-growth" or "mismanaged growth" is beinmg out of touch with Gods Spirit but instruction still needs to eb applied to each situation…otherwise why wasnt the biible just one page that said…"just love God"……a great concept but there is a place for righteous instruction and debate on how to fix things….
The other side of the coin; In Latin America were now Adventism is growing was initiated and sustained by devoted and loving missionaries from North America with tick accents. For many years were the presidents, directors, etc. Their actions and commitment were more effective than their limitations in language and culture. The spoke in the clearest and more effective language: the sincere caring for another human.
Poorer countries always have outstripped the west when it comes to growth…thats another side to the story…..se PNG how it laps up western adventism……sometimes the mass baptisms happen there only because tribal leaders are doing it so everyone does it…
“sometimes the mass baptisms happen there only because tribal leaders are doing it so everyone does it”
In Latin America? No sir. Latin American countries are Catholics, no tribes here! The North American missionaries were effective because they were involved in health, education and evangelism. These days missionaries from Latin American are going to different parts of the world. Some of the immigration to Argentina, Brazil and Chile came from Germany, England, Italy and other European countries. The Adventist descendants from these immigrants are going back to Europe, with same ethnic and language background something like the recent Pope.
The North American missionaries were effective because they were involved in health, education and evangelism.
Thats my point, most of the work done in poorer countries is mission work, not because we send in caucasian pastors. The missions also reflect what poorer countries crave – the western life……..western citizens dont crave the culture of multicultural pastors but can be turned off by them.
There are some very specific reasons why the church growth rate is faster in the poorer and lesser-developed countries. The biggest reason is that the Gospel is presented in practical terms that are easy to see actually working. That same doctrinal message presented in the same way just doesn't work the same in a more complex society. The Gospel doesn't need to change to be more effective and for the church to grow, just the way it is presented so it will be relevant and effective in the challenges a particular society presents.
They spoke in the clearest and more effective language: the sincere caring for another human.
neo,
Amen! Problems become dominant in the church where the ministry of God's love is not the first priority of those who claim to be the followers of Jesus. Where the ministry of God's love is the first and foremost priority of of believers, God resolves all problems in amazing displays of His power.
See Steve's comment above about Acts 6. It doesnt matetr how raw the christianity….there will always be issues that ned addressing and just saying to people "hey everybody, lest get close to Jesus" will not cut it…..plain biblical spirit led instruction needs to be had as Jesus and the apostles gave.
William I don't disagree but what you suggests is all a little magickal to me. It reminds my of Moses complaining to God in prayer on top of the mountain, and God telling Him to stop prayer and get the people moving.
The Apostles were full of Spirit, with the Pentecost just occuring, when nonetheless the Hellenized Jewish widows complained about discimination. The Apostles didn't give the sort of vague, pie-in-the-sky answer you now seem to be giving. They got practical, and took practical steps to appoint Hellenized Jewish leaders like Stephen to address this issue.
Sometimes the answer to pray is to use our brains and address things practically. That is often how the Spirit moves. If someone comes to you and complains about being hungry, James 2 says we don't simply talk about the spirit blessing and moving – James says to do something practical like feed them.
As I see it, Danny isn't trying to denigrate the Spirit's role here. However, he is entirely legitimate in raising a practical problem and asking for a discussion of practical solutions.
I agree Stephen sometimes we (Willam) have a tendency to try to spiritualise solutions instead of using our the other faculties in conjuction with prayer. When Joshua started to pray after they lost in Ai, God told him to get up and spring into action! I agree that Australian churches should be representative of the communities they reside in.
In defence of Bill, I totally agree with and understand his position…he has a working example of the way forward for all churches in the west……building trust by acts of good will is a sure fire way to grow churches in the 21st century. But in that philosophy of "Jesus method" – there can also be a natural "turning" that takes place of a church even of Bill's calibre into a cultural ghetto. We must intentionally understand the makeup of our community becuase if we take a slice of it and compare it to the church slice…they ned to look the same if we are doing outr job to reach all classes and cultures…..biblical wisdom and instruction is not at variance to spirit led outreach…
Neo: 'The other side of the coin; In Latin America were now Adventism is growing was initiated and sustained by devoted and loving missionaries from North America with tick accents.'
Neo, no one is saying imported pastors can't do the job. Danny's point is that there are severe limitations with imported pastors. He is absolutely right about it.
The Bible recognises the place of 'imported pastors' in going off to foreign lands. But the Bible also suggests where possible, the best people to mission are those native to that culture.
As I said, we see this principally in Acts 6, insofar as the Seven (elders/deacons) were appointed precisely because the Hellenized Jewish windows complained that they were not being serviced as well as the Palestinian Jewish church leaders. It isn't a simplistic matter of 'get the Spirit' as William seems to be suggesting, because these Church leaders were very much full of the Spirit, with this happening close after Pentecost. Rather, the apostles full of the Spirit recognised this very practical cultural problem.
And where a foreign missionary goes into a foreign land, they have a responsibility to understand and adapt to that culture. Consider again from Acts 16 how Paul had Timothy circumcised, to ensure he wouldn't cause offence to Jewish audiences. Good evangelism, especially by foreign missionaries, requires real effort to adapt to the cultural contexts of the dominant culture. We see this from the example of the Jesuits in China to the great Protestant mission Hudson Taylor.
Danny's point, as I see it, is that these two core biblical and historical strategies of evangelism are not being followed, in Australia, UK, Europe and much of the Western world. In the West, we are:
1. Importing foreign ministers when there are native minister available, who are not getting jobs. In at least one case, a friend of mine didn't get picked up despite being near the top of the class, with only something like 2 out of 15 of the theological graduates getting jobs. In that same year and the next, our local conference imported ministers from overseas. To suggest a lack of spirit on these young theological graduates is a terrible and unfair insult to them.
2. Imported foreign ministers not taking sufficient steps to being culturally aware and to adapt to the dominant Western culture in order to reach the dominant group. The proof is in the demographics of Western Churches, which now no longer reflect to dominant culture.
The outflow of missionaries from the Western world, where Christianity was in renaissance to the third world where the gospel was presented by cultural entities, with language barriers as well as vastly different cultural styles, in the 19th century, was possible because the HOLY SPIRIT said Go. Today, in the 21st century, all things have changed. Knowledge has increased vastly, the world is more educated, we are able to communicate by the internet to anyone anywhere, news of the world, to all the world which in the 19th century sometimes took weeks/months to reach across the globe, now can reach anywere in a few seconds. Absolutely amazing. Even in the 1920's, of my birth, the speed of communications since, boggles the mind. But here in the 21st century we have Gospel workers native to every continent, versed in the great diverse cultures of the world. Where should the workers be employed in order to be the most productive?? Definitely within the culture they represent. Why attempt to put round objects into square holes. We know many third worlders wish a better life, but if truly called by the HOLY SPIRIT, they will witness to their own culture, where they will be most effective. The big sad truth is multiculturalism DOES NOT WORK. Supposedly languages were confused at Babel, for a reason.
Agree with earl and steve 100%
As time advances, and race prejudices increase, it will become almost impossible, in many places, for white workers to labor for the colored people. Sometimes the white people who are not in sympathy with our work will unite with colored people to oppose it, claiming that our teaching is an effort to break up churches and bring in trouble over the Sabbath question. White ministers and colored ministers will make false statements, arousing in the minds of the people such a feeling of antagonism that they will be ready to destroy and to kill.
The powers of hell are working with all their ingenuity to prevent the proclamation of the last message of mercy among the colored people. Satan is working to make it most difficult for the gospel minister and teacher to ignore the prejudice that exists between the white and the colored people.
Let us follow the course of wisdom. Let us do nothing that will unnecessarily arouse opposition–nothing that will hinder the proclamation of the gospel message.
From Devotional: Maranatha, p. 142.
I have not yet been to Australia. I don’t really know anyone from Australia. I’ve met very few people from Australia; which is to say that I am not familiar with the Australian majority culture.
I am however totally familiar with America. I am absolutely familiar with—and conversant in—the American majority culture and ethos. I do believe that if this same thing were happening in the U.S., what Danny is expressing (as a reaction) would likely be experienced, expressed, and felt by many Americans of the majority cultural 'persuasion.'
My view is that what's happening is that the church now considers majority cultures in the developed world as mission fields. Actually, it is happening in the U.S. To be perfectly candid, it is happening even within the black (‘regional’) ‘work;’ wherein immigrants from the Caribbean are quite prevalent.
It’s a simple numbers game; nothing more. The Inter-American Division has three times the Adventists as does the North American Division. That is a very big number folks. The North American Division is the western hemisphere’s largest potential ‘emerging market’ for Adventism.
In the South Pacific Division the Papua New Guinea and Trans Pacific Union Missions combined have nearly six times as many members as does the Australian Union Conference. The developed world is the mission field. We used to hear about people leaving “the message” with others coming in to take “our” places; perhaps this is it.
These “multinationals” are probably from areas of the globe wherein ‘the work’ is burgeoning by relative standards—and sent to help. (Think about it, ‘the work’ was in “dire” straights in Australia in any case.) This likely has nothing to do with multiculturalism whatsoever; at least based on numbers.
Let’s put it this way, if I was leading an international enterprise with regions that were growing or producing much more rapidly than other more affluent areas, I just might occasionally send those from the growing regions to those more affluent regions. Or at some point, if the growth areas became so large in relative terms, such placement would become all but organic.
So then the answer to Danny’s question might be that what he and others of you are lamenting as counterproductive may be intentional (strategic); but it may also may be that it is "just happening" because the pattern of growth dictates it.
'So then the answer to Danny’s question might be that what he and others of you are lamenting as counterproductive may be intentional (strategic); but it may also may be that it is "just happening" because the pattern of growth dictates it.'
Stephen I suspect everything you say is absolutely true. I agree the Developed World is now the mission field. The Developing World is or should be the new base.
I wouldn't have a problem in anything you said if these Developing World bases were the ones supporting their new missionaries into the Developed World. If that was the case, sending surplus clergy to the Developed World, the new mission field, would make perfect sense. But that is not what is happening.
Instead, when a Developing World import comes to Australia, the Australian Church pays and supports that import. What annoys me is that this new imported pastor often takes the place of a 'native' Australian theology graduate.
Moreover, the import pastor simply comes and takes over existing churches – they are not out there in the 'mission field' focused on starting new ones. If they do get involved in active mission, it is often to a very closed sub-set ethnic group, whilst the majority demographic population is missed. It isn’t a net gain to the Development Church but actually a net loss – financially, culturally and administratively.
Traditionally, if an Australian or American Union sent a missionary to the Developing World, we Australian or American Adventists would pay and support that foreign missionary. For example, for several years our Local Conference has sent missionaries to Mongolia and we pay and support those missionaries – the Mongolian people don’t. The Australian missionaries also seek to build up a ‘native’ Church leadership as quickly as possible, per the biblical model where Paul instructs to appoint elders in every new city church founded.
In my home State, we also have a special Bible college for Australian Aboriginal missionaries. They do a fantastic job, because you can well imagine an Aboriginal missionary can appeal to their Aboriginal culture in a way a white Australian simply can’t. It’s about being able to walk in someone’s shoes and understand where they come from culturally when sharing the message of Jesus.
You couldn’t imagine then the fledging Mongolian Adventist Church having to displace its own Mongolian theology graduates for an Australian theology graduate, to be paid and supported by the limited Mongolian resources. That would seem crazy. You’d think that if Australia wants to help and send its surplus clergy to Mongolia, then fine, but you can’t expect it to be at the expense of Mongolian talent and resources.
We now have a truly bizarre situation where the Developed World is the mission field, as you rightly say, but the Developed World has to pay for it. There are indeed many, many more Adventists in PNG than Australia, yet PNG is still just an Adventist mission – administratively and financially supported by Australia. The same can be said for North America.
If this is a deliberate strategy, then it is a stupid one, and clearly not working in places like Europe. Just visit Adventist Churches in the UK or France and you’ll know what I mean. And I don’t mean race – I primarily mean culture. Most Churches in the UK are Caribbean, which I can tell you from experience are quite different culturally from African-American Churches in the US. I loved going to African American Churches in the US, as I almost felt quite at home, but something about Caribbean Adventist Churches in the UK seemed too culturally different to my Australian heritage.
It can’t be just me either, because the Adventist Church in the UK and France has made virtually no inroads into the indigenous white population. Again, if this is a deliberate strategy then it is one that is completely and utterly failing a huge segment of those populations, which aren’t being reached.
I'd imagine this is or will be all increasingly replicated in the US as well – as you said. Europe and the UK are already about 10-20 years ahead of Australia re these monumental church demographic changes, and I suspect the US is 10-20 years behind Australia. That is why Danny’s article is relevant to US readers as well – of what is going to come in the future.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t the African-American community in the US even have its own separate apartheid local conferences, in the same city aside non-African-American local conferences? Perhaps those African-American leaders had the foresight many years ago about some of these problems? How is the African-American Adventist demographics going compared with the white American Adventist demographics?
I agree with Steve Ferg on this as well. I cant really add to what he has said except that if the shoe were on the other foot and we were sending pastors into other countries….would we expect to be able to make up a chuirch of our own people (Australians for example), or be more sensitive to reach the indigenous of that country and careful not to creat a "white ghetto" – surely we would be condemned straight away for such an outcome?
It doesnt matter who is the mission field, you dont send missionaries into a country to reach your own kind alone…..
“I wouldn't have a problem in anything you said if these Developing World bases were the ones supporting their new missionaries into the Developed World. If that was the case, sending surplus clergy to the Developed World, the new mission field, would make perfect sense. But that is not what is happening.”
It seems by this statement that this is as much about administrative finances—i.e. who pays the overhead—as it is about culture/race or efficacy. (Especially since, "if these Developing Word bases were the ones supporting their new missionaries into the Developed World” it “would make perfect sense;" and since Danny agrees.
“What annoys me is that this new imported pastor often takes the place of a 'native' Australian theology graduate…Moreover, the import pastor simply comes and takes over existing churches – they are not out there in the 'mission field' focused on starting new ones. If they do get involved in active mission, it is often to a very closed sub-set ethnic group, whilst the majority demographic population is missed. It isn’t a net gain to the Development Church but actually a net loss – financially, culturally and administratively.”
The problem with this is that wherever these multinational pastors came from, one thing we know of a certainty is that their unions or divisions didn’t send them to Australia (and aren’t underwriting their salaries from afar); that’s for sure. What is happening is that your division, union, or local conference (likely the latter) is intentionally importing them for some reason. I submit the reason they're doing this may be perception that the majority Australians simply have not been getting the job done. (I have an opinion as to why the majority culture in America hasn’t been getting the job done over here, naturally.) I literally misspoke when I suggested that these imported pastors were sent to help. If anything they were brought to help. In other words, they were ‘sent for.’
“It can’t be just me either, because the Adventist Church in the UK and France has made virtually no inroads into the indigenous white population.”
This is problematic, but we must determine why this is. (Of course in America there is no such thing as an "indigenous white population;" but without doubt, something must be done.) My issue with Danny Bell’s thinking is that the dire condition that (previously) existed in Australia, and that exists with regard to “the indigenous white population” in Europe, has little to do with imported pastors. Imported pastors may be a diseasing symptom, but they weren’t the cause of disease.
“Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t the African-American community in the US even have its own separate apartheid local conferences, in the same city aside non-African-American local conferences? Perhaps those African-American leaders had the foresight many years ago about some of these problems? How is the African-American Adventist demographics going compared with the white American Adventist demographics?”
“Apartheid local conferences” suggests that there is intentional segregation de jure. Nothing could be further from the truth. ‘Regional’ conferences in America are and were an acknowledgement of the historical reality of institutional segregation in America and the church. Whites and blacks in America didn’t worship together because of historical racism in America. This was not only among Seventh-day Adventists, but this was sadly across all denominational lines. There are black churches because white people preferred not to worship with black people. This was especially true in the South. Local conferences comprised of black churches evolved from this historical and undeniable reality.
Things have changed socially, legally, and culturally. Membership and association is now absolutely voluntary. Anyone is officially welcome in any church. We find however that when blacks (and multinationals) join white churches in America, they tend to take over—as whites leave. This doesn’t happen everywhere to the same extent, but it certainly does 'occasionally' happen. White flight is unfortunately a real thing.
(I don’t understand you last question, Steve.)
That is correct in most cases. I can understand an exception in a situation where a large number of people have migrated to another country and may need an ethnic Pastor to minister to their spiritual needs. ASAP, however, we should acculturate to our adopted country and become a part of the new culture insofar as it is within the parameters of our religious convictions.
Maranatha
Is the Adventist church experiencing any growth in the first world nations: U.S. and Europe? In fact, they are losing members as the few increases are subtracted by the losses. These nations are jaded about religion as their much longer history of Christian religions as well as higher educational levels makes them suspect any religion. They may not be atheists, but simply agnostic toward all religions. Of the hundreds of academy students I've watched while living in the same city for 50 years, there are only a small handful who remain anything but "cultural Adventists." Try to visualize how to evangelize San Francisco and the Silicon Valley with all the discarded Great Controversy books that have been tossed in landfills.
The Adventist church which began in the U.S. and was once called an "American movement" has long ceased to be the larger group. It is only in funding and the centralized location here that are truly American.
No one has an answer to evangelizing these huge populations so the concentration has largely been on foreign (to the U.S.) shores.
Maybe Elaine this is the exact reason. Try evangelising these places with white native pastors let alone multiethnic ones. Maybe thats the problem……we are in the midst of a multi-ethnc pastoral change and its not working either. If you wish to understand growth in the Adventist church and that we are in a crisis of magnificent proportions then see my other articles here for the US : http://www.atodayarchive.org/article/2036/opinion/bell-danny/2013/north-american-adventist-church-growth-the-untold-story
and here for Australia: http://www.atodayarchive.org/article/2034/opinion/bell-danny/2013/what-did-the-australian-census-really-tell-us
The UK is self evident along with other western countries…..
If the Gospel is universal, is dividing the communities of faith along cultural and racial lines an unwarranted version of the Gospel? That is not a rhetorical question.
Within 5 miles of the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary at Andrews University, there is a Pilipino Congregation, a Korean Congregation, a Latino Congregation, the Village Congregation as opposed to the University Congregation, and the All Nations Congregation linked to the Regional conference, plus occasional ‘Home’ congregations or other congregational grouping.
It remains to consider whether there is a unified Gospel suitable for Silicon Valley and Harlem New York City and Ann Arbor MI and Frost Free FL and Hollywood CA and Berrien Springs MI … as well as the other 90% of the membership in congregations beyond North America. This is where it seems appropriate for the General Conference to seek unity around the world, rather than dress, order of worship, gender, Sabbath behavior, and the various fundamental beliefs other than belief #10, Experience of Salvation.
If the Gospel is universal, is dividing the communities of faith along cultural and racial lines an unwarranted version of the Gospel?
Absolutely and absolutely not Bill. We ned to be sensitive to the dominant culture and work towards winning them in ways they can identify with….its not a mattter of deliberately placing any race of pastor on a street corner in any country and letting them proclaimn the Gospel loudly because its "universal"……there is such a thing as strategy.
The “strategy” that had been employed (prior to importation of these multinationals) wasn’t working. If it had been working you would have some sort of a case. If the ‘dominant’ Australian culture had previously been making 'inroads' to its community, perhaps multinational immigration and importation would be an afterthought.
Well in fact this is correct. The Australian church in terms of representation of Adventists has declined in the last few decades where there were greater representations of Adventist ratiuo's to community ones in former years. The multi natiopnal pastor is a recent phenomena for Australia in terms of intensity. You could probably graph it alongside kingdom growth and find they paralell each other.
"You could probably graph it alongside kingdom growth and find they paralell each other" – sory let me corect that…
. You could probably graph it alongside kingdom growth and find they show similarities…in decline of growth vs influx of multinational pastors…
While I can't speak to what is happening in Australia, I have seen several cases in America where conferences expanded their use of foreign pastors simply for financial reasons: they didn't have the funds to bring-in an American pastor but they could expand the district of a successful pastor to include the church they wanted to cover.
Let's be careful not to paint all foreign pastors with the same negative paintbrush. My church's part-time pastor is from Columbia. He's great. But the church's growth is not because of him. If anything, we're training him in the application of gift-based ministries. His role is complimentary to that and not dominant overall as is so often the case.
Increased with goods, having need of nothing!! Amazing. With the instant news and actions in the world available to all, information on a billion subjects, the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is lost in the clamorous appeal of millions of other lifestyle voices being offered. The pursuit of hedonistic, don't wait, experience it now, we beautiful people, is where its at. We movie people, celebes, entertainers, rappers, dope dealing,carousers, sex selling, exhibitors of every toy to make it worth while, to do it now, to have it now, let it all hangout, we beqautiful people are free=ee=, no hangups, no counciousness, no rules, we are it, no thoughts for tomorrow, l-i-v-e t-o-d-a-y ya-a-a-a-a. What is LOHAN and the KARDASHIANS doing today?? Buried very deep in the files of endless info is the message "I HAVE LOVED YOU WITH AN EVERLASTING LOVE", "I WILL NOT FORSAKE YOU NOR LEAVE YOU".
Religin in Europe and North America, with all the din and shouting for attention, has totally drowned out the wee small voice of "COME UNTO ME ALL YE THAT LABOR AND ARE HEAVY LADEN, AND I WILL GIVE YOU REST".
Hard Times, only, makes mankind seek solace and hope for the future.
Actually, there are millions of Americans who are looking for work; homeless, declaring bankruptcy and represent more than those seeking to know about the Kardashians who represent a much smaller segment of those who are needy. A hungry man cannot hear you speak of the Gospel. Meet human needs FIRST and they MAY be willing to listen
There are more than enough places and opportunities for Christians to help those in need than worrying about converting more Adventists. If anything, Jesus showed the example of Christianity in action which had very little preaching and more helping the poor, sick, and discouraged.
Today, the problems just in the U.S. are shown every night on TV and in the printed press. There are no calls for more preachers and teachers of religion but for health workers, food servers to work in the community or join those who have already established such efforts.
In my city there are a number of such facilities, one fed several thousand on Thanksgiving and all week long every year. The Salvation Army is another (forget what EGW said about them), and children without homes. This IS the Gospel in action. "Spread the Gospel wherever you go; speak if necessary."
Elaine very much agree.
Feeding the hungry man IS the Gospel. The Gospel isn't just talk but actions, as James 2 makes clear. But I suspect many have forgotten that.
Stephen Foster: 'The problem with this is that wherever these multinational pastors came from, one thing we know of a certainty is that their unions or divisions didn’t send them to Australia (and aren’t underwriting their salaries from afar); that’s for sure. What is happening is that your division, union, or local conference (likely the latter) is intentionally importing them for some reason. I submit the reason they're doing this may be perception that the majority Australians simply have not been getting the job done. (I have an opinion as to why the majority culture in America hasn’t been getting the job done over here, naturally.) I literally misspoke when I suggested that these imported pastors were sent to help. If anything they were brought to help. In other words, they were ‘sent for.’'
Stephen you might be right. I really haven't disagreed with any you have said, even where it looks like we might be disagreeing.
I would be interested though if you could share with us all:
1. Why you think there is a perception that the majority of Australians and Americans have not been getting the job done?
2. Why you think there is a perception that imported overseas pastors have been sent for to help, especially if that means displacing domestic theology graduates, who are now not been picked up for jobs (i.e. why a local conference or union would deliberately employ the foreign over the domestic)?
3. How you think this deliberate strategy is going so far, especially in places like Europe who have in effect been doing this the longest for decades, and in light of some of the challenges Danny has outlined above?
4. What are steps practically could be taken to reach out to the domestic majority culture with the gospel message?
“1. Why you think there is a perception that the majority of Australians and Americans have not been getting the job done?”
Danny suggested that these imported pastors were invited “to come and be on the team to inject something different or new into what was (and still is) a dire situation in Australia.” As for America, I’ve previously reported, there are now three times as many Adventists in the Inter-American Division as there are in the North American Division. There are about 1,185,000 SDAs in the entire North American Division. Over 300,000 of these Adventists are members of churches in the predominantly African American regional conferences alone; and this does NOT include ANY of the 325,000 members of the Pacific and North Pacific Unions, nor ANY of the nearly 58,000 members of the Potomac and Chesapeake Conferences (wherein there are a number of sizeable largely black churches in Maryland and Virginia), nor does it include any of the 31,200 members of the Ontario Conference in Canada, nor does it include any of the 27,500 members of the Greater New York Conference (which is predominantly non-white), nor does it include any of the 3,900 Bermuda Conference (which is also nearly all non-white), nor does it include any of the many, many African American, Hispanic, Haitian, and immigrated African members of any of the Division’s other Union Conferences. So easily one of every three Adventists in the North American Division is not of European descent—and again, the entire North American Division is only about one third the size of the Inter-American Division.
“2. Why you think there is a perception that imported overseas pastors have been sent for to help, especially if that means displacing domestic theology graduates, who are now not been picked up for jobs (i.e. why a local conference or union would deliberately employ the foreign over the domestic)?”
Danny suggested that these imported pastors were invited “to come and be on the team to inject something different or new into what was (and still is) a dire situation in Australia.” It’s his perception; ask him. Again, I think that your local leadership perceives a desperate, if not dire, situation. I’m not familiar with Australia, but if your situation and that in Europe is similar to that in North America, then the decision may be that desperate times called for desperate measures…or perhaps they weren’t impressed that the domestic theology graduates were up to the task for some reason. Could this possibly be after assessing the performances of relatively recent home grown recruits?
“3. How you think this deliberate strategy is going so far, especially in places like Europe who have in effect been doing this the longest for decades, and in light of some of the challenges Danny has outlined above?”
I suppose that the results haven’t been good. But whatever preceded it wasn’t good.
“4. What are steps practically could be taken to reach out to the domestic majority culture with the gospel message?”
This is the proverbial question that I had thought you’d never ask. Since you asked me, I can offer my opinion and assessment of the problem.
The gospel message is available to everyone and is not only preached by Adventists. The Advent message is a special message and will not be received if it isn’t delivered, and it will not be delivered by those who don’t believe it. At the risk of painting with the politically incorrect broad brush, I suggest that this is the problem and the solution for the domestic majority culture in Western Europe, the United States, and Down Under.
In my opinion the Laodicean mindset—of being “increased with goods,” including formal ‘education,’ and materially in “need of nothing”—has caused the Developed World to be even slightly cooler than lukewarm at this point.
I believe that the obvious dubious regard for the Bible and the near-total lack thereof for the counsels from White’s writings have rendered the ministries of many in the Developed World all but totally impotent insofar as the proclamation of the Third Angel’s message is concerned (if nothing else).
The majority culture is increasingly if not largely ashamed of and embarrassed by Adventism; some seem embarrassed by Christian doctrine generally and seek to remake or reform it in their image 'and after their likeness.' We from minority cultures in the Developed World may not be very far ‘behind’ (with this, the farther behind, the better).
In organized sports, whenever a team or an athlete slumps/struggles/flounders, the best advice offered is to return to the basic fundamentals. That may be a non-starter for many; but prayer, love, faith, Bible study and a reliance on the Holy Spirit’s power, are the only ways out of this. Australians have taken some major denominational, doctrinal, and cultural body blows over recent decades and so a “shaking” has commenced earlier. Nobody ever said it would be easy. It will get more difficult than this.
The majority culture is increasingly if not largely ashamed of and embarrassed by Adventism; some seem embarrassed by Christian doctrine generally and seek to remake or reform it in their image 'and after their likeness.
I dont see this in the majority adventist culture Steve. I see majority adventists culture as conservative leaning, an 'us and them' approach to the world…..revival sermons or events always take the form of demonising how the world is coming into the church….emphasis on being good rather than doing good…….I dont see alot of embarrassment as generally adventists proudly attend church week after week knowing the losses but maintain their heads in the sand and stubbornly blame the world or worldliness creeping in or some other demise like you hinted "we are just not keeping the standards high enough" – and so once again they go to their workplaces trying to slip religion into the conversation (demonising anyone who rejects them), and make rediculous stands in front of neighbors that bring demise on the church instead of curiosity or respect.
I hear this "we have dropped the ball behaviourally/theologically/liturgically" among Adventists who struggle to connect the "worldly" public. Let me rephrase it as I heard it from a middle of the road majority adventist: "We have told them the gospel, you cant force people to come to church, its their decision to stay away" or as one woman argued with me when I said perhaps our way of doing church was offputting to seekers – " I like it and thats all that matters" – very one eyed and selfish. Thats what keeps people away…attitudes that include doing it the way they feel comfortable with and not wanting to have to put themselves out like maybe deal with the fact that heir church has turned…a painful reality that needs alot more personal work to change….thats the problem there….a self righteous attitude.
These responses are lazy and look for reasons to avoid real contact with the public. I suspect Bill will have something to say here as it is his forte to get down and dirty with the public. Generally in Australia, adventists rush evangelism styles that involve as little contact as possible with the community – ie: letterbox drops, bring in an evangelists and host the meetings, xmas concerts, harvest events, fathers day, mothers day, special events etc, all types of outreach that has a "you come to us" approach…….God forbid we would have to go out and do something for someone.
Generally in Australia, adventists rush evangelism styles that involve as little contact as possible with the community – ie: letterbox drops, bring in an evangelists and host the meetings, xmas concerts, harvest events, fathers day, mothers day, special events etc, all types of outreach that has a "you come to us" approach…….God forbid we would have to go out and do something for someone.
You just spoke volumes there! Importing foreign pastors isn't the problem. What you just described is the real problem. That kind of behavior is a death sentence for the church because it disconnects the church both from the community and from the power of God.
Let me tell you a little story. Just more than an hour ago my wife and I were dropping-off our minivan at our mechanic's shop for repairs. It is literally a "Mom and Pop" shop where the husband does the shop work and the wife handles the office. Several months ago we had to take it in for repair and didn't get it back for over a month because he'd developed complications from diabetes and had been in the hospital for an extended time, including having part of a foot amputated. When I finally learned that they were back open and went to pick-up the van they were greatly appreciative that our greatest concern was for his health. (We had a spare vehicle so it had been just an inconvenience to us.) I spent nearly an hour with her sympathizing about her concerns for how to properly care for him as he recovered. I was able to share some practical tips learned in caring for my mother a few years back when she was in a similar situation. She took notes and soaked-up what I shared. This evening she and my wife were visiting when I arrived and the biggest thing she talked about was how much they appreciated what I had shared before because it had given her courage to care for him and he was improving as a result. To make a longer story short, they are wide-open to learning about the source of the love they were shown.
Oh, by the way, their shop is just down the street from Oakwood University where you can hear a whole lot about selling EGW books and preaching as the only God-approved ways to evangelize. These folks have been turned-off by such approaches. But a little love has touched their hearts.
God will renew the church in Australia if people are willing to first be touched by the love of God, then reflect that love to others by touching them.
Yes bt who leads that congregation Bill? If its a multinational then the culture of the church changes…even if they are doing it right…the church will fill…no problems there but will it be representative of the community it serves?
When the members take ownership of the church and become its' real leaders is when the church grows and thrives. When they become personally disconnected from ministering God's redeeming love is when the church declines. Allowing pastors to become stronger leadership figures in the church is a very effective tool Satan uses to weaken the church.
Perhaps the best thing that could happen for the church is for it to lose most, if not all, of its' trained pastors so that members will be forced to discover the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and discover the roles God wants them playing in the body of Christ in this world. God will raise-up leaders where they are needed. We should not be seeking leaders of our liking, but those whom God wants us to have.
“Oh, by the way, their shop is just down the street from Oakwood University where you can hear a whole lot about selling EGW books and preaching as the only God-approved ways to evangelize.”
Of course on the planet Earth—light years away from the planet Hyperbole—no one at Oakwood has ever “[heard] a whole lot about selling EGW books and preaching as the only God-approved ways to evangelize.” On the other hand, it is highly probable that the majority of people baptized into Adventism in North America nowadays are done so by an alumnus of Oakwood. (Sorry Danny, I hope this isn’t derailing.)
Here’s my question Danny, do you find the Australian theology graduates to be as conservative (as you’ve caricatured/characterized conservatives at least) as you find the majority Adventist culture? In terms of their approach to theology, do they believe what Adventists have historically taught as does the majority Australian Adventist?
This is rather enlightening because I had the impression that the Desmond Ford controversy, if nothing else, had a lingering effect on the culture of Adventism in Australia.
I can only see things from my perspective and experience as a keen observer Steve and do feel there is a difference between US and Ozzy adventism….like a lag in where you have been we are following.
I think we WERE less conservative (and you are right the Ford Crisis did impact the church through the 80's and early 90's and caused a wave of celebration/liberalism chruches to spring up),but we are fast catching up with you in the conservative sense with an obsession over Christian cable TV (3ABN), and a kind of 'tea party' is emerging within church culture.
I do generalise as there are other developments like the materialists, fringee's and the spiritual bubble people, deliverance types but the Fordites have moved on and are now into evolution, acceptance of homosexuality as gender type and a throwing out basically of most historic sda doctrine.
The theology graduates seem to be sweethearts who coming off the conveyor belts are on a mission to not offend as many people as possible…sensitive new age types……neither into the doctrine as much as the neo-conservatives but yet defending it as a part of the system that keeps them alive and fed – matrix like. Its a strange mix and its not working – throw multicultural smoothies in there and we have a disaster.
Our leaders in the Division and Union tow a prtetty conservative line but as you near the University zones it gets a little fuzzy and now we have lecturers "coming out" as the latest act in our 3 ring circus. The problems I speak of are but a few of the self destructive nature of the church in Australia with a few bright lights/churche as exceptions we ar estill stuck int he 50's generally and is it any wonder our kingdom growth is near zero annually.
Wow, thats a pretty damning picture I just painted but thats my reality unfortunately.
no one at Oakwood has ever “[heard] a whole lot about selling EGW books and preaching as the only God-approved ways to evangelize.
Only every time I've been on the campus. Just every time I've been to meetings planning to evangelize. That's what I hear from friends who are faculty in the Religion Department. NAPS? That's for "over there." But for "over here" it is preaching and literature evangelism.
If they're promoting any other outreach, I'd like to see it.
So, from the planet Hyperbole, “every time [you’ve] been on the campus…every time [you’ve] been to meetings planning to evangelize… [you’ve heard] a whole lot about selling EGW books and preaching as the only God-approved ways to evangelize;” is that the fact?
It’s conceivable that the words “every” and “only” have no meanings on the Hyperbolic planet. So now, have you heard this or have “friends who are faculty in the Religion Department” heard it; or perhaps both?
Please mention the name of any faculty member, or anyone, who has ever said that “selling EGW books and preaching [are] the only God-approved ways to evangelize.” On the other hand, it is highly probable that the majority of people baptized into Adventism in North America nowadays are done so by an alumnus of Oakwood.
Steve Ferguson, if “a huge number of domestic theology students are Polynesians – way in excess of their representation of the general Adventist community or wider Australian demographics,” is it possible that a small number of domestic theology students are Anglo/white—much smaller in fact than their proportional representation in the general Adventist community would normally indicate?
William,
I would consider VERY carefully before I would drag-out the name of any Oakwood employee before a member of their Board. Just some firendly advice 8-).
Stephen,
it is highly probable that the majority of people baptized into Adventism in North America nowadays are done so by an alumnus of Oakwood
Your Oakwood bias may be understandable but this statement is almost surely incorrect. It might be correct in your own part of the country where Regional conferences are generally run by the old-boy (no girls) club of Oakwook alumni. It is not true in most of the rest of the country.
Believe it or not, most of the church growth in North America right now is among recent immigrants, not among the Afro-American community as you seem to believe. Believe it or not, most other SDA colleges in North America (with one notable nearby exception) do graduate Afro-American and other non-Anglo theology majors in substantial numbers. Believe it or not, those non-Anglo theology majors from other SDA colleges, are often (there are exceptions) better-equipped than Oakwood grads to work in the multi-cultural context of many of the churches in other parts of North America than are your own alumni.
If you wish to minister in Adventist churches where no one ethnicity predominates there is a fair case that you should go to a school where no one ethnicity predominates. And I could name a few such schools but I think you already know them. They tend to be more prevalent in other parts of North America than in the Southern Union.
Disclaimer – I am NOT trying to flame the passions of ethnicity on this web site. But in this case I think there are assertions being made that should not go un-challenged.
Re the Aussie church I know not enough to be dangerous (though I did on one occasion visit an Aussie church comprised of immigrants from South America). Re North America I have spent quality time in many different parts of this continent and I have a fairly good handle on what is happening as well through my (ethnically diverse) network of contacts.
Jim,
Perhaps you missed that I said a “…majority of people baptized into Adventism in North America nowadays” which wouldn’t include immigration. To the extent that immigrants who have never attended Oakwood are baptizing people in North America in numbers that would falsify my observation of this being “highly probable,” please share something similar to what I’ve shared above relative to numerical information.
I’m certain I haven’t traveled nearly as much as you have throughout North America; but the Southern Region is not where I have been most of my life. I’m from the Atlantic Union, and have resided in the Columbia and Lake Unions, and have matriculated at more ethnically diverse Adventist institutions than are my academy and college alma maters (Pine Forge and Oakwood). In a way, I hope you’re right that I am understating what, through the power of the Holy Spirit, immigrants who haven’t attended Oakwood are accomplishing in evangelism. I just do not see how what I said can be “almost surely incorrect.” But I will admit, since I’m not aware of how many African Americans and other minorities there are in the Pacific Union, nor do I have any idea how many Oakwood theology alumni are in that Union, my guesstimate could be incorrect. And, being from the Atlantic Union, I am cognizant that many of the pastors in the Greater New York Conference, and, in latter years now, in the Northeastern Conference, are immigrants from the Inter-American Division and did not attend Oakwood University at any time. However, the Northeastern Conference is the only Regional Conference that is largely demographically diverse in terms of immigrants and the only one not “run by the old-boy (no girls) club of Oakwood alumni;” having now I believe its first president who is not an Oakwood College alumnus. (Some conferences are employing women as ministers.)
However, there are over 300,000 members in the Regional Conferences alone, which doesn’t include the entire Pacific Union (nor the Greater New York Conference, the Potomac Conference, the Chesapeake Conference, the Bermuda, or Ontario Conferences).
There were (only?) about 37,300 baptisms and profession of faith additions combined in the entire North American Division in 2013, Jim. Nearly 9.800 of the baptisms alone—not including any profession of faith additions—or just over 26% of the combined total of baptisms and professions of faith, were from just the baptisms in the nine Regional Conferences alone (again not including the entire Pacific Union, the GNY Conference, etc.). As you suggest, over 4,800 of the approximately 9,500 combined baptisms and professions of faith in the Southern Union were from the baptisms in the three Regional Southern Union conferences (51% of the combined total)—wherein most of the pastors are ‘Oakwoodites.’ All things considered, would it be a stretch to guess that the Pacific Union percentages might in that vicinity with respect to the rate of baptisms of minorities? (Are there really now “substantial numbers” of African American theology majors graduating from “most other SDA colleges in North America,” Jim? Since you graciously gave me a “believe it or not option,” how about ‘not’?)
You seem to have a penchant for ‘underestimating’ my alma mater for some reason; or perhaps this is, as The Temptations once sang, “just my imagination, once again.” In any case, the annual Pastoral Evangelism and Leadership Council is scheduled at Oakwood this weekend for pastors and other leaders. You might consider checking it out sometime.
I've read all the comments above and pretty much agree with virtually all of them. Yet I'm also filled with despair.
I agree with Stephen that Western skepticism is probably a root problem here. I also agree the attempt to change to fit the world, rather than be something on offer different from the world, is hardly working. Yet the old methods don’t seem to work either, because they have also been tried to death, and still are tried all the time, with virtually no results. Basically there is nothing that hasn’t been tried and nothing seems to work in attracting the majority domestic population.
In terms of what does work most, I agree with William that personal relationship is far more successful than traditional evangelism. I agree with Danny who likewise talks about ‘lazy methods’ in a similar train of thought, which hardly works, especially not in our secular culture. Virtually all the people who have entered the SDA Church in the last 15 years, and more importantly stayed, that I know of personally, have done so through a personal relationship as opposed to traditional evangelism.
I agree back with Stephen that maybe foreign pastors are seen as a solution by many Australian Church leaders, and maybe it is because some domestic graduates are seen up to the task. But I still concur with Danny about the cultural challenges these imported pastors face. One element that hasn’t been discussed is that at Avondale (the seminary in Australia), a huge number of domestic theology students are Polynesians – way in excess of their representation of the general Adventist community or wider Australian demographics.
Now some Polynesian pastors are absolutely fantastic – a close friend is originally from Samoa. But some seem (if only a little) to be motivated because in their culture, pastors are afforded enormous respect. My Polynesian pastor friend admits a pastor is, ‘respected as even more than a chief’, something that annoys him personally, given he is a really humble, down-to-earth guy.
By contrast, being a pastor is not a vocation very attractive to most ‘white’ Australian Adventists. I suspect in another earlier era I might have joined the clergy, instead of becoming a lawyer, but being a pastor has absolutely no attraction to me. Theology interests me greatly, but not ministry. To me being an Adventist pastor is like being perpetually on the set of reality TV show Big Brother. Often a pastor sacrifices the spiritual lives of his family and children for that of the congregation. Virtually all the PKs (pastor’s kids) that I grew up with have now left the Church.
So maybe I am personally part of the problem we are discussing here. I’m not sure if we have really found the root causes here or the real solution. But I appreciate the exploration, started with an excellent article by Danny. These are indeed all issues that need to be discussed openly, and it is good not to be back in the usual ‘culture war’ debates between so-called conservatives and liberals.
Steve I sympathise brother…..the thing that keeps me from being overly despondent about it all is that God has told us this would happen at the end..so cheer up..its nearly upon us and the other thing is that I can write about it and try to generate discussion and deeper thought of what the answeres might be..your comments have been encouraging and this discussion has been fuitful indeed.
As my mate Ed Dickerson says, we fight and argue with our wives but that doesn mean we dont love them….the church is no different….
One element that hasn’t been discussed is that at Avondale (the seminary in Australia), a huge number of domestic theology students are Polynesians – way in excess of their representation of the general Adventist community or wider Australian demographics.
Good point…..the chickens have come home to roost…..thats the fruit of the multicultural change from churches that are "turning" all over our country……the fruit of the multicultural pastors…..white pastors are few because the churches is where pastoral hopefuls are fosterd and grown…..if the church isnt reaching the majority community around it then its only natural what is happening at Avondale……it will be an exponetial disaster for average Australians if this is the cylcle and it continues……
One element that hasn’t been discussed is that at Avondale (the seminary in Australia), a huge number of domestic theology students are Polynesians – way in excess of their representation of the general Adventist community or wider Australian demographics.
If they are that numerous, has the time come to establish a training center for them closer to their homes?
Steve, it sounds like sour grapes: listing all the projects of other churches that Adventists would never do; yet look at how few members have been added to your SdA church; that should tell you that while those "other churches" are doing everything wrong, what is the SdA church doing that is right and adding members? So easy to criticize, much more difficult to change things.
Take a clue from the fast-growing non-denominational churches in your area. Regularly, in the newspaper they are doing all sorts of community aid: distributing food and clothing, offering worshops for families who need shelter or to find available housing. They also have a publicity officer that sees that this information is furnished to the media.
The media is not interested in knowing about how many revivals or books are handed out but how has the community benefited by your church presence? What has your church done to benefit your community?
They also promote Prosperity-Gospel "magick". Their theology is about using God to get more stuff: money, health, relationships etc. There is one down the street from my house and I have attended quite a few times. I also attended the mega-Church Hillsong in London virtually every week for a year.
It is any wonder they're successful in a consumeristic Western society? My understanding is these non-denominational Churches are good at getting people in, but not many remain after 5 years.
They certainly have their place perhaps as entry-level places. They're like fast-food. A simple formula that tastes good. But you get sicking of eating Big Macs every week.
I'm not sure if numbers then can be the only criteria. Even engaging in the community doesn't work as easy as you say it. My local Church has run a "Road to Bethlehem" Christmas programme for more than a decade, which has been a massive success. It has really engaged the community. We have a couple thousand non-Adventists attend every year over three nights.
Our local Church is even known by locals as "that R2B Church". But do you know how many converts we've had from that programme – virtually none. Maybe 1 in 10 years.
The Salvation Army also engages in the community – better than any other Christian denomination. But they're dying.
So is the Prosperity-Gospel mega-Church the only answer? If it is, we're in serious trouble. We might get more people, but we won't be attracting them with the gospel but simply with "magick".
P.S. I don't necessarily think these Churches are as "non-denominational" as you might think. In reality, they often do belong to a denominational affiliation, such as Assembleys of God. They just happen to hide that denominational affiliation, and operate a congregational model where the Pastor with 10,000 members can drive a ferrari, as Australia's Brian Houston of mega-Church Hillsong does.
Steve
These properity churches are shooting up in Africa like weeds and as you have observed, they rarely last more than 10 years with the same congragation. Its high numbers initially but when members realise they are no richer than when they first started many leave dissillusioned. I find it interesting that in Australia they drive ferraris here in Zimbabwe they have helicopters and private jets!
I also agree with you that these non denominational churches are not the answer but perhaps if we actually started living radically like Christ, People will marvel and ask questions. The reason sometimes that liberal cannot attract members is because they are wordly and use flattery and patronisation miscontrued as love. The reason why sometimes conservatives are also not succesful is that they lack the softer virtues like compassion, kindness etc. What we need are loving people who stand for undiluted truth and purity regardless of the ambient culture and leave the results with God.
Elaine,
More than just doing what is good for the community, our churches should be doing what actually benefits the community, not just what little bit of good works we misght use to bait a hook drawing them into attending an evangelistic crusade. Many people need a lot more loving over a far longer time than a few weeks. God is powerful but it takes time for people to unlearn old ways and learn to live in God's love.
What fats growing churches Elaine? Adventist?
There are a number of large churches in my town that are constantly increasing in size, requiring larger accommodations. The largest SdA church here, established in the late 19th century had approximately the same membership as today when the town was only 1/10th the size it is today.
I dont know about the US Adventist scene specifically and imagine there are churches bucking the trend like Bill's church. The problem is however the vast majority are dead and continue to do the same things over and over hoping for different results. In Australia, we arte dead, dead, dead…..I have already written about this on AT.
Well said Elaine. The SDA church teaches its members they are a unique people. The messages are thou shalt nots. Do not as the worldly people. Be careful how you dress, what you eat. Don't go to movies. Don't dance. Don't wear jewelry, or anything calling attention to yourself. Listen to the murmurs at Sabbath main session, when someone breaks the rules or decorum with a short dress or makeup. Note the responses are almost totally with regard to the female members or visitors. This continual policing by other members is shameful and harmful to a membership that loves the Lord Jesus. It tends to insulate the congregation, and isolate them
with the world, and i believe makes it most difficult for them to contact the outside community. Therefore their witness on a personal basis in the community is lost. i believe this is true in the majority of N.A. SDA. Sure their are a few members in each church that let their light shine for the Lordbut most i've observed aren't comfortable with personal contact outside SDA. It is getting more and more difficult to make headway with the world
as "religion" is not a topic most will discuss. "Don't talk to me about religion or politics", i hear more and more. The only chance we get is when the Holy Spirit has prepared the way, and we are fortunate to be nearby. Still today, those who've studied N.A. religions, think SDA is a wierd group or cult, along with LDS, and Jehovah's Witness, and don't want to get involved even in conversation with one of us. So what can the SDA do to gain a fair entry to the community?? Stop putting up stumbling blocks by advertizing our insularity, and open the hearts with love, concern, and doing, for your community, so when one hearkens to the Holy Spirit, we are there to love them into our midst. Active groups in each church should be constantly involved with the needs of their neighborhoods, and respond lovingly when the opportunity is presented, But not sit back waiting for the opportunity to smack them in the face, but to actively seek out the needs. A live wire like William, and his daily experiences, should be available in written form, of all the ways to make a love contact with the community. And training sessions with those talented leading out. This must be to those drawn to share their Godly love with their neighbors. It must be genuine.
This is what the Pastor is paid to do. Unless they are called to this role, and performs it, they shouldn't be the shepard.
"I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth" Romans 1:16.
Earl, I agree 100%. Adventists should stop thinking as a "religion" and become a place for answering community needs. Institutional and organized religion has been relegated to an out-dated entity and is seen as being worthless to the majority of people today.
To attend church weekly, listen to a sermon, and then go home to our lives as usual is the pattern of your average member today. You know it, I know it, it is very common knowledge that it is only a form with a lengthy list of creedal statements that have totally unaffected its members and certainly has no infuence on the public. For the major time of G.C. committees to be given to addressing a possible word change in the FB statements is a total waste of time: what difference does it make? Absolutely none except to incite anger and more disagreements.
Instead, if the leaders took a sharp turn and changed the entire focus of the church to engaging and serving the communities where a church is located, offering services that people desperately need, this would truly be living one's beliefs. The problem: the "beliefs" are simply a statement with no active initiative required; simply agree or disagree and nothing changes.
Does no one in leadership consider that unless there is a drastic change in the methods that have always been used, the attrition rates will continue to climb? Who needs Adventism? Why should a fellow on the street want to even hear about a coming apocalypse? He may be living in one today. If he has not already seen loving religion in action where needed, he has no interest.
BTW: I give what little I can afford to the local charities in my town that I know are using their funds wisely in feeding and clothing the homeless.
I in turn 100% agree with both you Elaine and Earl.
Ironically the SDA pioneers didn't want to consider themselves a religion. They didn't even want a creed, and the preamble to the 28 FBs says it isn't, even though in practice it now is.
The SDA pioneers, like the original apostles, were trying to start a movement – not just another religion. But alas, the strictures of "orthodoxy" always arise.
I am reminded of atheist Richard Dawkins, and happen to somewhat agree with him when he says:
'The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think “theology” is a subject at all'.[i]
What do theologians in the GC do exactly? I agree they can talk in their dead languages but on the ground, in the local congregations, they have virtually no impact.
98% of what we even discuss here on AToday has absolutely no impact or affect on what my local Church does. And so it should. Our message is simple and it doesn't require such overcomplication.
When people attend my local SDA Church they care if meet greet them at the door, are invited home for lunch, or are given a simple but inspiring message. They don't care a whit about deep theological issues that professional theologians love to discuss.
Yes, the Salvation Army (SA), St Vincent De Paul dining rooms, and the County Food Lockers that distribute food daily. The SA distribute food & clothing daily at specific hours, People in my town line up an ahead of distribution. A question that has always bothered me is with the 150 years of operation of SA, they appear not to have increased membership locally, where they do their work??
Perhaps unlike some religious denominations, membership growth is not their main objective. Should it be? They are certainly doing the work as Christ did and is equally of worth. It is much more important, IMO, to do good works than speak good words. What you do rings so loud in my ears I can't hear what you say. They are living the Gospel, not merely telling it. And I'm not sure that what Adventists teach is always the Gospel.
Yes and no.
The Salvos are in my view the best living embodiment of Jesus – full stop, no argument. However, they are also dying. Most people think they are a charity not a bona fide Christian denomination. Who will do the good works for no expectation of reward when they're all gone, or virtually gone? Will it be these mega-Churches, who seem to be so focused on getting congregants to pay them money – so different from the Salvo's motivation of doing something for no expectation of reward?
The Gospel is indeed about living the kingdom, which is Jesus' command about the sheep and goats, of bringing food to the hungry, healing to the sick and freedom to the oppressed. The SDA Church, like the salvos, has been doing those things for decades. We have the world's largest Protestant education and health systems, one of the largest development relief agencies and liberty organisations. Yet we're not doing as well as the mega-Churches who don't do those things and instead give "magickal" promises.
We actually heal with the best of modern medicine – they promise faith-healings.
Moreover, the Gospel is more than just works. The good news is essentially the apocalyptic good news that Jesus was God who came down to be with humanity in the mud, lived and died with us, rose from the dead and will be coming back again for us. You can't take the eschatology (end-time) element of the Gospel – it is the Gospel.
Thus, whilst many Christians today treat the gospel as a call to do good works, the message is actually far more radical than that. The blood of the early Christian martyrs didn’t soak the floor of the Colosseum to simply make our lives better. They didn’t die so we could enjoy church luncheons, relationship courses, finance seminars, or uplifting worship services with the latest multi-media equipment. In fact, they didn’t even die to feed the poor, protect refugees or free the slaves, although these are commendable aims. Rather, the martyrs died for a radical hope that Jesus Christ would return in the clouds, in the same way that He left (Acts 1:11).
And I don't see the mega-Churches who are doing well in the West emphasising that much. So how Gospel are they?
The mega-churches in America tend to be short-lived. They grow quickly, peak for a time and then begin dying as people go seeking spiritual fulfillment in other directions and as new spiritual issues become popular. So I hope will will not become envious of them.
A church can grow, but is it growing in a healthy and strong way. The primary weakness of the mega-churches is the "cult of personality" that builds around a popular leader and has little or no lasting power after the leader departs, dies or is discredited. In contrast, the strength that endures and builds the church in more ways than just numbers is when it is built on a close relationship with the Holy Spirit and where the gifts of the Spirit are welcomed and allowed to function.
Elaine: 'Who needs Adventism? Why should a fellow on the street want to even hear about a coming apocalypse? He may be living in one today.'
The apocalypse doesn't have to be a bad message, although 90% of the time it is presented in a terrible way. Being a Christian fundamentally means accepting this apocalyptic message. Therefore, for those who reject the apocalyptic message about death and resurrection but claim still to follow Jesus’ ethical teachings do not, with all respect, follow Jesus at all. Whether such people should even call themselves “Christian” is a confronting but genuine question.
Modern biblical scholars (non-Adventists included) even have a special term for Jesus’ apocalyptic approach to morality – an “interim ethic” of a “thoroughgoing eschatology”.[i]
A 'good apocalyptic' is a message of hope. It says all the crap you see around us will one day end. And I'm not just talking about our personal lives.
Living as if the world itself might end tomorrow is different from living as if only our personal lives might end. If I told you you would die tomorrow, I still think you would live your last day differently than if I told you a species-ending asteroid was going to destroy the world tomorrow.
If I told you you would personally die, many people would still try to achieve a degree of immortality. They would get their will in order, plant a tree, build a giant pyramid! But if you knew the world itself would end, you'd actually realise those attempts to hold onto immortality are pointless and ego-driven.
A 'good' apocalyptic is actually very Buddhist like, in totally surrendering the ego and letting go. It should actually help you live today better – in the moment. This is what I take Jesus meant when he said don't worry about tomorrow, and don't store your treasures on earth but in heaven.
Alas, I agree most Christians teach a 'bad' fearful apocalyptic, not a 'good' apocalyptic. The judgment again is good, about hope of justice and living today in the moment, but again I agree it is preached as a message of fear.
Steve,
The apocalypse doesn't have to be a bad message, although 90% of the time it is presented in a terrible way. Being a Christian fundamentally means accepting this apocalyptic message.
I wish to register vigorous disagreement. Apocalyptic messages focus on the end, the future, the off somewhere in the distant future but not today. The apocalyptic is largely irrelevant to the modern world because people are far more concerned with how to survive and prosper today. The power of the gospel is not found in teaching a correct apocalyptic message, but in demonstrating the power of God in our daily lives and how God enables us to live with peace and joy despite the troubles around us. If we want people to listen to our message about the apocalyptic we first must get their attention by demonstrating how God can work in their lives today and tomorrow and on until the apocalyptic arrives. The message of the judgement is that God wins. But it is meaningless religious babbling until they learn how much God loves them.
The work will be finished with us, and without us. Unless the Holy Spirit is able to enter the minds of mankind, and receive assurance of the love of God, the persons involved in the issue of eternal life will make the decision
for life, or death. As our physical and mental makeup is subject to weakness, God is able, and will bring all to conclusion.Our God never tires.
When the end comes, why be afraid. There may be collateral damage of some of God's people written in the book of life, but i seriously doubt it. Our God's plan for the redemption of His Own will be instant,at the time of His calling. Those with knocking knees, fearful of the wrath of Armageddon, those of narcistic and bellicose flaunting and cackling at the Gospel's last message, will have sealed their doom. They will request to be put out of their misery. Just as today in our society, there are some who choose to leave this world with an AK-47 blasting away at the police.
There needs to be an element of fear in the end time message……sometimes thats the only thing that can motivate a person to seriously consider their position. Each circumstance may require a different approach but generally the message of the Gospel is about a forgiving God.
By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. – Heb 11:7.
That "fear" was not an attitude of "I am terrified of God and don't want to be near him" but a very healthy respect for God that appreciated his power. If Noah had been afraid of God instead of deeply respectful then He would been far less likely to have obeyed.
If we are motivated by fear then we have much about the apocalypse to cause us to tremble because it means being sentence to eternity with a God you don't trust or love. But if we have learned God's love here we should be looking forward to the apocalypse with anticipation because it means being rescued from this sin-filled world!
He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. – Rev
I know this is an upopular subject but times are a changin upon the theological landscape of the church. There was a cultural theology/train of thought in the SDA church a while back and still is alive somewhat, that tries to water down the "fear" statements in the bible to more subtle forms of emotion like "respect" a "healthy attitude" etc etc. I think we ned to stop worrying and return to he original meanings. When it says fear it means fear – genuine fear of what may lay before me if I dont change…this is a worthy and God ordained motivator in scripture….not the best and first resort but it is a method God hmself uses to turn people around.
Dingdong,
Strongs is but one concordence and the implications for this passage is not that Noah was scared straight at all. Rather, 'when warned about things not yet seen' that is, God in response to Noah's inquirey unveiled the future to Noah who in trusting God took (in Strong's concordance) 'pious care' to followed though and built the ark. Noah is a legend of faith, in Hebrews 11.
The Gospel is not to ever be motivated by fear.
Ellen White learned this from her Mother as an almost/just barely teenager when her mother was discussing with an adult friend the bible teaching that there is no eternal burning hell. Ellen was terrified that without fear of eternal pain humans would never strive to live a life of rectitude. She even told her mother to keep this new belief a secret for fear of society's collapse. Her mother replied that the love of God is far more powerful than fear of any kind. "If the love of God will not induce the rebel to yield, the terrors of an eternal hell will not drive him to repentance. Besides, it does not seem a proper way to win souls to Jesus by appealing to one of the lowest attributes of the mind,–abject feat. The love of Jesus attracts; it will subdue the hardest heart." http://egwtext.whiteestate.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=LS&lang=en&pagenumber=49
Be of cheer, and testify accordingly seems to be Ellen White's experience. As she noted, 'the strongest argument in favor of the gospel is a loging and lovable Christian.' http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mh/mh40.html
Never fear, friend, Jesus loves you and everyone you and I meet without exception.
As I have said above to Bill 2, I dont agree with common explanations about what fear means in scripture. The word in fear in Hebrew has a range of meanings and it has become popular to water these meanings down as a way of compensating our particular views.
Here is the most common Hebrew form of the Strongs word fear which you refer to in the OT:
Original Word: יִרְאָה
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: yirah
Phonetic Spelling: (yir-aw')
Short Definition: fear
As you can see the English translation is basically the English word for fear. What happens is the translators look for the bst english word to describe what teh original word encapsulates – they ahev chosen "fear" – there is not side stepping this. Some of the other uses of the same word are:
There is not logic in our insistence of bringing in the softer uses of the word, especially when the context demands a stroger use. I would nevr use fear as a first resort to reaching out to non-christians but I would also never say there was not a time when we shoudl not hold up the judgements of God before an appropriate audience.
PS – I dont fear God Bill, only when I am doing stuff I know I shouldnt be…then it kicks in…along with my knowlege he is a forgiving God…..that shelps me turn from my sin and get ontrack – a fantastic motivator!
PS,PS – EGW is talking in contect there of soul winning…..got no problem with that….her words are true. The thing is, God uses it and often in scripture to motivate…..while we may not be encouraged toi use it as a calling card, he certainly does and in his own way used it to turn people around – only those who have been in rebellion against God and returned to his care can understand this however.
Gee Bro (Danny)… Your article and all of the subsequent replies are very exposing indeed to say the least. To me it shows that the Adventist church is just another man created denomination/organisation that has no relevance at all to Gods intention to build His church in order to produce the body of Christ and bring in the Kingdom of God. The pastoral positions that are handed out by the “church” and are sort after by many of its members are just enforcing a Nicolation type hiracial system which(as you already know) God hates Rev 2:6!.
Though we may be very political and diplomatic in the way we express our view on certain subjects such as position or race or religion, ultimately through our expression the true condition of our hearts will be exposed. May it never be that we are found to be egotistic or racist or religious but rather that we are found to be in Christ where we are all serving ones and where there is no Jew nor Greek nor multinationals nor high positions, no pews nor pulpit but just Christ who is the Head and we the constituents of the Church are the members of His body.