The Evangelism Industrial Complex
by Ed Dickerson
At the recent North American Division Ministries Conference, George Knight remarked that the church in North America is not growing. Wintley Phipps, in a presentation at Oakwood College said that fully one-third of NA congregations are first generation immigrants. Among the indigenous population—regardless of race or ethnicity—the church is shrinking, not growing. Those who read this column know that the continuing loss of young adults is a continuing theme.
What I find most frustrating is that this news is not news at all. Some have been sounding the alarm for twenty years or more. The first Seeds church-planting summit was held in 1996,* because the late NAD President A.C. McClure recognized that “What we’ve been doing is not working.” For the first time in church history, in 1995 the number of SDA congregations in the NAD declined. The original purpose of the Seeds conferences was to plant churches to reach indigenous North Americans, in recognition that only growth among first generation immigrants kept the North American church from showing a decline in total membership.
Let this be clear. Everyone is grateful that we are successful among first generation immigrants. But if we cannot keep our own children, if we cannot reach those around us, we will soon cease to exist. Because hidden in the numbers is the simple fact that we don’t reach second generation immigrants, either. As soon as people reach a certain level of affluence, education, and mobility, and become part of the secularized Western culture, whether here, in Europe, or anywhere—Adventists don’t reach them well.
This represents a demographic disaster for Adventists. Because where we are in terms of affluence, etc., the rest of the world is going. Put simply, if we cannot appeal to our own children today, there will be fewer and fewer we can reach anywhere tomorrow.
“Seeds” was a recognition that we needed to plant not only new congregations, but new kinds of congregations, congregations that ministered to the larger culture where they are, rather than trying to move them to where we are. No matter how often I say or emphasize the next sentence, many will still go off on a tangent about changing our doctrines, but still it must be said. This is not a matter of theology, but of methodology.
Our church plant, which focuses on young adults and the larger culture, is pretty orthodox when it comes to doctrine. But it is very different from other congregations when it comes to approach.
Unfortunately, McClure’s illness made it difficult for him to carry through. There was another difficulty as well. Although the President of the NAD had the vision for church planting, most of the attendees at the early Seeds conferences were conference presidents, departmental secretaries, or pastors—in other words, part of the institutional church. And conferences are made up of existing congregations, who regard with suspicion any new congregation which doesn’t look and feel just like the existing ones. The record is clear: Conferences in general are hostile to church plants which actually seek to reach the secular world we live in.
In 1996, McClure declared that church planting was going to be the way the NAD did evangelism from then on. He said that we would be planting new congregations rather than re-invigorating older ones because “Birthing babies is easier than raising the dead.” But babies are noisy and needy, and the spiritually dead don’t like the commotion. Church politics are a lot like Chicago politics: the unborn don’t vote, but the dead vote early and often. Spiritually dead or dying churches still control finances.
McClure had the vision, but conferences had to implement that plan. Seems there was little incentive for conference presidents to upset their dying congregations, and increase the likelihood of their consequently becoming former conference presidents! Within a few years, much of the emphasis had changed from planting new congregations to revitalizing existing ones. Midwifery gave way to gerontology.
A big part of this status quo is the Evangelism/Industrial complex, though we have known for some time that traditional evangelism does not reach the wider secular culture. A number of years ago, a prominent member of the Evangelism/Industrial complex, who had often supported church planting, defended traditional evangelism to the NAD executive committee because “Statistics showed that more than 50% of people baptized through evangelism were still members two years later.” Two years? I can introduce you to people who have been attending other denominational churches for more than twenty years who are ‘still members,’ because they are still on the books. And that pastor was defending traditional evangelism because only 50% were already gone in two years. Meanwhile, we continue to lose more than 70% of our own young adults.
Little of this seemingly matters, as conferences and existing congregations are comfortable spending thousands of dollars on traditional meetings, where perhaps half a dozen are baptized In this same time frame (and perhaps as result of the evangelism methodology) 25 or 30 of the younger generation in that same congregation move inexorably to the exits. We have multi-million dollar independent ministries devoted to traditional evangelism, and while their traditional approaches may not be successful in reaching the prevailing culture around us, they are very skilled in appealing to big donors, many of whom are business people. And that completes the circle. Donors support traditional evangelism. Traditional evangelism has the funds for more visibility and more fund-raising. Alternative possibilities are starved out; congregations become more even less relevant to the world we live in, while we continue to lose our own children.
Until we are ready to put as much effort and as many resources into retaining our own children and reaching the ones who have left as we do into all the public evangelism events, we are going to keep losing our young adults. They can see where our last-generation values fail them. For the first forty years or so, this was a young people's movement. For more than the last forty, it has become an aging people's status quo. To change that, we will have to take on the Evangelism/Industrial Complex.
*editor notes: Ed Dickerson attended every Seeds summit through 2003 and spoke there in 1999.
Thanks for sharing Ed! I'm on board 100% with what you are saying. When are we as a people gonna figure this out and actually do something about it? I've been resisting the traditional evangelism model for 20+ years… since my teens! Time to get real and meet people where they are! That's what Jesus did!
This is a first class analysis, and expecially the point about the "Evangelism/Industrial Complex." One wonders if the traditional institutional Adventist Church at it core really wants it youth back. Most youth (the exception apparently being the GYC group) ask too many questions about very touchy subjects and immediatly see through hypocrisy. Also, someone is going to have to address squarely the conventional Adventist ethos which will require some examination of some closely held theological beliefs. We do live in interesting times!
Ed,
Yes, excellent assessment of the state we have reached.
I am however going to take your tangent:) This IS a matter of theology, AND methodology! I seriously think they are so intertwined that when it comes to addressing where we are and finding solutions every cause will need to be faced. Theology undergirds much of our methodology as I see it.
The fact that it is "education" and "learning" among other things that seems to contribute to our demise or loss of impact suggests issues may lie within the realms of how we think, and hence what we "teach" ie Theology.
Just a tangent, but I don't think we can get off so light as to just blame methodology. Sorry:(
cb25
I don't know where you're going with "education," but there are two problems with singling out Adventist education as a major part of the problem. First of all, only a small percentage of young people attend our schools all the way through. So, if they're 'losing their faith' while in Adventist schools, it's not at any greater rate than those in other educational institutions. If you control for the SDA/non-SDA school variable, I doubt the difference is statistically significant.
My point about theology is this: It isn't the content of the doctrines that's the problem, it's how that content is communicated. I have presented the investigative judgment, the Sabbath, Ellen White, the great controversy, the sanctuary–just about any distinctive you can think of–to young adult audiences, and had enthusiastic reception. There are others as well, certainly. My point is that it is how we 1) live as if these doctrines make a positive difference in our lives, and 2) articulate them in language which contemporary audiences understand.
Let me highlight this, a little. A couple of years ago I spoke to an Adventist church plant near Nashville. Most of the audience were actually pretty traditional SDA. One man, in his 40's, had been raised SDA but had become prettty thoroughly secularized. My topic was "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," wherein I compare Job with Arthur Dent, in that, for both men, the Universe, as they have understood it, just doesn't quite make sense. My mostly traditional audience was polite, but this secularized guy was 'with me all the way,' so someone close to him (both physically that night, and relationally) told me. In fact he shocked some by just happening to show up at the rest of my presentations that weekend.
When you boil down the actual content of what I said, it was pretty standard. But the approach spoke to this man where he lived. That's what I'm talking about.
Hi Ed,
Yes, I do agree there is much to method and presentation, and I don't wish my disagreement to diminish that.
Re Education. No, I'm using the word very generally. eg "on average the people in the USA are better educated (100% literacy rate or close) than those in Southern Sudan with a 27% literacy rate.
To illustrate how this transfers into real life, it is pretty much gauranteed that perhaps the majority of people in Sudan have never heard of the geologic column, fossil records, evolutionary principles and theories etc etc. I could go to that person and potentially "teach" them about creation and God as "We Christians" teach it. Their education poses no problem. Just try teaching a YEC creation to a secularized, educated 19 yr old at Harvard, Princeton, Yale. etc. Their education WILL pose a problem
Now that brings back a key point you made about second generation immigrants. Surely education in this sense contributes to their demise from our ranks?
As you say, our distinctive doctrines will still appeal to an audience. However, who are they? I would submit that you could almost create a "personality profile" of the "kind of person who will become an SDA and STAY one. Many people become one but do not stay…ultimately their personality must be a "fit" or the "old timers" and our "don't question" mentality to which Dr Taylor alludes will spiritually kill them.
Yes, well, we're closing the circle again.
It's not whether our distinctives appeal to an audience. It's whether we present them in a way to appeal to the audience we're addressing. That's where the Evangelism/Industrial complex comes in. For the most part, our evanglism is almost identical today with what it was 50 years ago. Yes, we use powerpoint instead of charts, but it's the same content. Let me give you an example. On a major Adventist media purveyor, I recently saw someone preaching "Adam's Mother's Birthday." It's the Sabbathh (wink, wink). I remember hearing that same sermon, with the same title, in an evangelistic effort in the late 1950's!
Vitually every one of our evangelists assumes that the audience finds "The Word of God" authoritative. "What says the Word of God?" they will thunder. Contemporary audiences never argue about that–arguing is a bit of a boomer thing. X-ers and Millenials just shrug and walk away.
Do I believe the word of God is authoritative? Certainly. But if my audience doesn't, simply asserting it won't convince them. Reminds me of one travel writer who was asked, "You find out so many interesting things in these foreign countries. What languages do you speak where you travel?"
To which he replied, "English, only louder." That's an enormous part of the problem of our evangelistic efforts: we're speaking Adventist, only louder.
One of my presentations to Adventists concerns how our evangelistic efforts tend to recruit for and perpetuate dysfunctions in congregations. Here I'll leave it at this: we get what our recruiting methods attract. But the big donors who fund all this like hearing their preferences reaffirmed, and so they keep financing those efforts.
cb25
The problems with theology and methodology are that we assume the first is correct so the second must also be proper and true. It was only after learning that there was a whole lot more to learn about God and that He wanted me to minister in ways outside those approved by Adventist tradition that I came alive spiritually and got involved in active soul-winning.
Ed,
Appreciate your points, and I don't wish to keep on disagreeing to the point where the important things you say are lost. However, I personally do not believe we can ever present our "message" in a way to appeal to anything beyond a narrow audience.
You are so right about our fossilized evangelism methods! But in addition to that, at the end of the day, our distinctives are what they are no matter how we package or gloss them. I am going to dare to suggest that our doctrinal package needs the kind of renovation that I think Ron Corson spoke off. I think the kind of Adventism that will be relevant to the wider audience today will be barely recognizable to the "big donors" in both its methodology and its theological brevity.
I agree, "we get what our recruiting methods attract.." At risk of offending some readers – don't our recruiting methods often appeal to people who are happy not to think. Put it another way – thinkers don't stay! Put another way, and to undo some of the offence I have just commited, we may attract thinking people, but it is these who will more likely move on…
Re dysfunctions. Yes. I think that fits a bit the "personality" profile thing I mentioned.
"we may attract thinking people, but it is these who will more likely move on."
My experience is the opposite, that those thinking people just need to have what we believe presented in a way they can accept. Our little plant has appealed to Ph.D's, engineers, physicists, who had given up on traditional congregations.
Ed,
So….would I be correct your examples were "pre Christianized"?
That is "sheep steeling"? Does it really demonstrate our appeal to the larger audience/culture to whom I think your blog was suggesting we need to appeal?
OK. I'm getting fussy now and yes I am a Boomer so there you go…proves you're right on that one:)
Cheers
No, actually, I can't think of a single one that belonged to another denomination. Majority were burned-out SDA's, several were non-denominational, a few secular. Almost all were college educated. Right now, about 2/3 of our congregation have college degrees, 40% post graduate degrees. Median age 28. Most were either out or on their way out. And we lost a Ph. D. and educated wife (moved away). FWIW, those who used to be SDA in some way are often much harder to reach than just secular. "A brother offended, etc."
If we could retain even 1/2 of our young adults, they would be the ones to reach their contemporaries. That is precisely what we experience.
Ed,
Sorry, I misunderstood the "traditional congregations" reference. I took it to be "other" Christian churches. Different kind of sheep steeling:) Good to see there were a few secular one tucked in there. Anyway, it sounds like you guys are doing a good thing…keep it up.
Cheers
Ed,
Have you read the book "Unchristian?" If not, I highly recommend it. The authors document and describe exactly what you just mentioned about it being harder to win those whom we have lost: they know us and can see us coming, so they put their defenses up. In the larger context this is our greatest challenge in evangelism. The majority in America have negative past experiences with churches and very defensive against that resembles what they want to keep in their past. As a result it can be easier to convert a radical muslim than a former Christian who is de-churched.
Laziness and the Laodicean condition are two of the culprits behind the loss of church members among "native" North Americans. We're too affluent ("rich and increased with goods, and in need of nothing"). Too many among us have become "cultural Adventists," and the next generation can't find a good reason to join the culture. We used to be "people of the Book." Now, I doubt that 1 in 10 could defend their beliefs from Scripture. And so we've not been able to pass that on to our kids. Unless they study for themselves to know what the truth is, they will be likely to go with whatever the current trend in spirituality may be.
The seeds for this were sown long ago, maybe in the generation that preceded the so-called baby boom. They gave us all the rules, but failed to articulate the principles undergirding those rules. The result was that many among the next generation had no foundation on which to build and fell away when Desmond Ford came along with his confusing heresies. Now that the predicted heresies are among us, it has become even more confusing, and few can sort through the morass of error. Those who have arisen to articulate a clear message (such as Ted Wilson, Stephen Bohr, Doug Batchelor, et. al.) have been mocked and derided as legalists, and accused of being stuck in outdated 19th century theology.
So this loss-of-members dilemma does not surprise me. We were warned that this would take place, but we weren’t exactly sure how it would manifest itself.
I agreet with Mr. Butler. It is certainly possible that less than 1 in 10 Adventists can defend a number of Adventist doctrines from Scripture (e.g., Remnant Church concept, and the Investigative Judgment). Perhaps the reason is that these doctrines are very, very difficult (impossible?) to defend from Scripture alone. Now if you include EGW, it becomes much easier. But Mr. Butler said Scripture.
I would not say that our positions are difficult to defend from Scripture. What is difficult to defend from Scripture is why our interpretation should be accepted over someone else's interpretation. That is where Ellen White is a convenient 'trump card'. Her writings allow us to move from "our position is defensible scripturally" to "the prophet (speaking for God) says we are right". It usually does not work for non-SDAs, and seems to be working less and less for SDAs. But it does help us avoid admitting something we refuse to admit: that the Bible can legitimately be interpreted in different ways by different people.
Mr Taylor appears to be in a state of denial. Why is it that so many of us can see clearly how our doctrines (including the Remnant Church, and IJ) can be defended from Scripture, but others continue to be in denial? Is it because it puts us out of sync with other Christians, and is source of embarrassment for those who don’t wish to be perceived as out of the mainstream? Those who have defended truth over the centuries have always been in a minority and out of the mainstream. Why would it be any different now that the stakes are higher?
Brother Butler,
Perhaps denial is contagious. The question isn't whether we're in sync with other Christians, but whether we can articulate our message in ways contemporary people of all types can understand. Saying our doctrines "can be defended from scripture" assumes that the audience accepts scriptural arguments as authoritative. These days, they do not.
Even those who accept the Bible in some way hold the attitude — shared by the vast majority in western cultures today– expressed in this thread, that "scripture can be interpreted in many different ways." We don't have to believe it, but it is our duty as Christians to try and reach such people. Simply repeating our scriptural arguments over and over, no matter how sound they may be, will not be effective.
"Saying our doctrines 'can be defended from scripture' assumes that the audience accepts scriptural arguments as authoritative. These days, they do not."
Yes, and there's the rub. We live in a world that, for the most part, rejects Scripture as authoritative, never mind accepting as the Word of God. So how do we address that without watering down the message? The Bible will be the standard by which all mankind is judged; including post-moderns, for whom the idea of absolute truth is foreign. It seems to be a nearly insurmountable obstacle, but if we believe that God is a just God, then we must believe that everyone will have ample opportunity to make an intelligent choice between truth and error. That hardly seems possible at present because the devil has done a good job of muddying the waters. I don't know how it will play out, but I believe that this will change in a way that will give everyone a chance to make that choice.
Our mission is to preach the gospel to the whole world, whether or not that world accepts Scripture as authoritative, or not. We were warned that if we didn't finish the work during a time when it was relatively easy to do so (like when most people still believe in the authority of Scripture), we would be forced to finish it under much more difficult circumstances. And that's exactly what has happened.
Ed,
Asking if we are in-sync with those around us so we can communicate the Gospel more effectively is getting the proverbial cart before the horse. We should be seeking to be in-sync with the Holy Spirit, who will empower and guide us into ministries that will enable us to touch others in ways that reveal God's love. Any discussion of outreach methods that does not begin with and totally depend on the Holy Spirit is a waste of time.
FWIW, I never use Ellen White as a source of authority to anyone outside the church, and very rarely (once or twice a year) to those inside the church. Contemporary audiences don't respond well to any appeals to authority, so I rarely use them. Instead, I appeal to experience.
Ed,
Evangelism Industrial Complex is a fine take on Eisenhower’s preaching against the military-industrial complex and its threat to the core values of United States in the 1950's following WWII. Well put by both of you.
The ‘organized’ church has largely abandoned conference evangelists, instead outsourcing the need for same to private ministries. Our congregation has had at least one and often two evangelistic series each year for the past few. Not one led by a college graduate. All were products of schools of evangelism run by private ministries. The typical training runs 120 days. At which point the evangelist has a computerized series that they have practiced and is ready to run evangelism meetings. They are also prepared to step 'interests' through the bible and 'bringing them to a decision.'
The private ministry then hires them out to local conferences and churches for 45- to 60-day sessions during which a two-week or so series of meetings is held, powered by that computer stack of screens projected on 'the big screen' erected for the meetings.
This accounts for a good deal of why the Seventh-day Adventist church is declining. This is the preferred door through which new members enter the church. It is a passageway that makes the famous 'eye of the needle' seem like Broadway.
And there is really no way to refine this process, Ed. The more powerfully you, by comparison, can articulate fundamental Seventh-day Adventist doctrines in the common idiom, you are only making things worse. Your skill in this regard demoralizes the membership, every bit as much as the lack of skill embarrasses them.
Evangelism based on an evangelist and a series of meetings is the antithesis of life as members experience life.
Preach the Gospel straight and true, light the oil already in the souls in the pews, inspire the hearers for the week ahead, and in time early arrival will be required to secure a seat.
I’m pretty sure the children of the members will be just a blessed, as will visitors and invitees. Indeed, members will increasingly feel free to invite neighbors and strangers alike to join them in church.
This whole evangelism industrial complex reminds me of the story about a couple of brothers who buy a truck and go in the hay business. They buy hay from farms in their rural area of the state for $3 a bale and then truck it to the city where they sell it to horse owners for $3 a bail. One morning over breakfast one of the brothers tells the other, “You know, this isn’t working too well.” The other brother replies, “You’re right and I’ve been giving it some serious thoughts. We need a bigger truck.”
It is time to sell the truck … turn off the computer … and preach the gospel.
And when someone asks about the fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church, a pretty good answer would be, “We have an interesting history! Let me tell you about it. Ever hear of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes? …” I am showing my U.S. social bias I know … In other places of the world one might ask, ““We have an interesting history! Let me tell you about it. It all began with a man who thought the world was going to end in 1844 …”
"Preach the Gospel straight and true"
Certainly, but frankly, the typical Adventist, indeed the typical Evangelical today, is preaching in a language which might as well be Latin, as far as most people are concerned. As Paul said, "I'd rather say five words that everyone can understand and learn from than say ten thousand that sound to others like gibberish."
The language we take for granted sounds like gibberish or worse to contemporary audiences. Example, we say, "Your sins have separated you from God," or "you have a sin problem."
Young adults shrug and say to themselves, "This guy is from another era, and has nothing useful to say to me." But they say it to themselves and walk away. We have to learn to speak in a language people understand. We teach missionaries foreign langages so they can be effective. We just don't realize that secular western culture is foreign to us, and our language to them.
Ed writes in the comments above:
"My point about theology is this: It isn't the content of the doctrines that's the problem, it's how that content is communicated. I have presented the investigative judgment, the Sabbath, Ellen White, the great controversy, the sanctuary–just about any distinctive you can think of–to young adult audiences, and had enthusiastic reception…"
Let's take one example as I tend to agree with cb that the methods and the doctrines have gone hand in hand. The Investigative Judgment, you claim to be able to teach it and have the youth respond favorably. As I recall it is on the top of the list in the ValueGenesis survey of disbelieved teachings of the Adventist church young people. I won't look it up now, it was somewhere on my blog, but first or top 3 anyway. Are you teaching it as the historic Adventist church believes about the IJ, that is how it was written about in the 1888 edition of the Great Controversy in the chapter under the title The Investigative Judgment. You know sins being held over in heaven and then blotted out or remaining depending on the sinners condition at the time of the case being adjudicated in the IJ? Or are you as so many do, downplaying the actual IJ doctrine in favor of the preadvent Judgment idea that well how can God come without making His Judgment before He comes.Because they really are too very different ideas. So you may claim to be teaching the IJ but it's meaning has changed in your teaching.
Not that I have a problem with changing meanings, but if it is pretended that the doctrine has not changed because you use the same title and change the meaning it is rather deceptive. And leads to the statement's I believe all the old doctrines just like a good SDA…even though you know longer believe them in the way the good SDA used to believe them. Of course when those new interpretations come up against a good old Traditional Adventist and he/she points you back to what the church really believes and what the Adventist prophet says and you have not come clean that you really don't believe in that anymore, then it seems all you have done is temporarily kept people in the SDA church.
In other words the church really has to change to actually change and these kinds of tricks don't really do much in the long run. Because it seems like at some point the grand ole church will swoop down and say this is what we believe why aren't you teaching that and if your not teaching that then you should not be teaching anything in the SDA church.
Ron,
You have said it well. Unfortunately, I think the problem goes even deeper than just theology.
Too many Adventists long ago gave up a genuine effort to know the truth. After many years of observation and service in a local SDA church I am persuaded that Adventism suffers because of its flawed biblical interpretation (theology & message) appeals to fallen human nature. It is pride that permits SDAs to deceive themselves. Traditional Adventism embraces what can be seen as false with only simple observations.
I will give one example that I think is particularly relevant to the church's inability to retain its young people. Anyone, who has spent any substantial time in Adventism, has heard the old clique that Ellen White's writings are the lesser light to lead to the greater light. There may have been a time in Adventist history when this statement was true. But, in my life time it has been anything but the truth and from what I can tell that began far before my time.
It is simply not possible to accord EW the authority that has been typical of Adventism during my life time and to be able to call her a lesser light. Her writings far exceed the Bible in volume and detail. These facts coupled with the virtual infallibility claimed for her Biblical interpretation make her a greater light. For at least a half a century, this statement about the lesser light has been used dishonestly to deny what is the true practice of Adventism which is to treat her as a greater light without which we cannot come to the correct knowledge of God's plans.
I am forced to speak plainly because life experience has proven that tiptoeing around this issue does no good. No matter how well meaning people like Ed are, they seem to deceive themselves regarding the real issues. Satan will be happy if we package and repackage Adventist truth while our young people leave the church without a saving knowledge of Christ. Ed may genuinely believe he is having success with new methods, but repackaged pride and dishonesty will not fool many for long. And what have we accomplished if we do fool them.
In our service for the Lord I think it is our first priority is to ensure people have a saving knowledge of Christ. I find it extremely discouraging to do this within Adventism because so many in the church are more loyal to Adventism than they are Jesus Christ. It is hard to find a safe place within Adventism to follow the spirit's leading when surrounded by those who put more faith in the institution and lesser lights than they do in Christ and the inspired words he came to fulfill.
Rudy,
Please consider a differing point of view. Our salvation does not depend on how much we know about particular doctrines. But having a faith in God that works in our life situation requires that we know God in ways that empower us to deal with life's challenges. As a result such topics as the IJ are absolutely irrelevant for all but those who don't mind wasting their lives in useless debate instead of soul-winning. But what does matter is my connection with the Holy Spirit so that I have an immediate and continual connection with God to receive His guidance and empowerment for effective ministry.
Preach the word? Remember, the Biblical meaning of "preach" is simply to proclaim. The concept of a sermon as a formal presentation on a spiritual topic delivered by a member of the clergy class from the pulpit inside a building dedicated for the practicing of religious rituals is not Biblical. So, PLEASE, let's all stop preaching and start communicating as the Holy Spirit reveals what we need to say to individuals one-to-one.
Ron,
I don't teach the "shut door" idea. Just because something was once held or understood in a particular way does not make it representative for all time.
Rudy,
In every denomination there can be a difference between the way some believe and practice, and official church doctrine. As far as pride goes, no one is immune
Ed,
Agree with both your statements above, but when you make these statements in response to the concern I expressed, its hard to imagine you are going to have any real impact on the youth. You seem to be dismissing my concerns as invalid and not worthy of consideration or discussion. That technique is bound to win the hearts of young people.
Well, Rudy,
I can confidently say that I have never said that however well-meaning young people are, they are decieving themselves and only repackaging pride and dishonesty–because I don't find that technique persuasive.
You mention "lesser lights," and find that peole misuse Ellen White. And then you go on to make sweeping assumptions about whether or not I give young people a saving knowledge of Christ.
I ignored them because they have nothing to do with what I was talking about, or what I teach. And it's precisely why I talked about going of on a tangent about theology rather than methodology. I had hoped to avoid redundancy.
The challenge is to express truth in ways that will be received and be meaningful to contemporary audiences. Arguing about what anyone teaches is simply beside the point. I'm talking about method, not content.
Rudy,
I totally agree with your observations of problems. Radical transformation in the church is required if they are to be addressed and resolved. I'll add another item to your list of things driving our youth out of the church: we disrespect them. We talk about them becoming leaders but have no plan for training and developing them into leaders, nor any opportunity for them to serve if they are trained. This distrust is a large negative. So, how can we go to them after they've left the church and have them believe that we really want them back?
William,
I don't have the answer, so I pray a lot about it. I am pretty sure we are not ready for them to come back. Having spent my life in the church I hope and pray someday we will be ready, but I confess that when I listen to what is suggested as answers to the problem I wonder if we ever will.
Probably some radical change must take place to "shake" things up. One thing I do believe prophecy tells us, is that a crisis is coming in every aspect of life, especially the spiritual. Whether that crisis will first be manifested in the church or in society I cannot be sure. I only pray when the crisis comes I am standing in the right place, a place of grace that only trust in knowing Jesus can provide. And of course I want that for many besides myself.
Ed, perhaps I was not clear, I was going off the list you gave and the subjects you included on that list. The Sda church as an organization never had the shut door theory as that was well before the church started. To wit I mentioned the investigative judgment.
If you are meaning to say that you use the SDA churches traditional words but carry entirely different meanings to them, I would say why even use the SDA terms?
I'm consistent with historical Adventist principles. Traditional explanations were not always so.
OK, I get the picture, when people are talking about doctrines and someone inserts the word Principles I get the picture. Hence my problem. When the people like yourself are afraid to even admit that you are not teaching the traditional doctrines then you are admiting that you are afraid to change the church. I understand it is the cost of being employed, and it is why the Adventist church will not change no matter how much the membership may want it to. Thus the membership continues to slip out the door. It will always happen to the young first since they don't have the history of committment to the organization, it just takes a little longer for those with greater ties to the church but they still will leave as well.
Who and what does that leave? Traditionalists and the traditonal methods of evangelism. The circle is complete and the organization has itself established for it bureaucratic intents.
"the history of committment to the organization"
If that's what people are committed to, they've missed the whole point. I'm not committed to the SDA Church; I'm committed to the truth as delineated in the Bible. I just happen to believe that SDA doctrines are in harmony with Scripture. The reason that so many Jews rejected the truths that the Jesus and the apostles were trying to articulate, was that they were committed to Judaism, not the truths of Scripture. Our loyalty should be to Christ, not to any organization. Only to the extent that an organization is in harmony with Scripture is it worthy of our support.
Horace: ditto
"When the people like yourself are afraid to even admit that you are not teaching the traditional doctrines then you are admiting that you are afraid to change the church. I understand it is the cost of being employed"
Well, let's see now. I'm not convinced your focus is clear.
1. I am not employed by the church, nor have I been for more than 30 years.
2. I am not afraid to change the church, that's why I keep calling for change and doing my utmost to change it.
3. I suspect we are using the word 'traditional' in very different ways. Teaching verbal inspiration was traditionally taught by many in the Adventist church. However, it was never the official position, and Ellen White explicitly denied it. There are more than a few who apparently believe in Biblical inerrancy, though that, too, is not our official position. Today we have 28 fundamental beliefs. Some of them are worded in ways which our pioneers would not agree with. That does not mean, however, that those words are at odds with the principles our church was founded on. There are principles, which do not change, and rules, which are (at best), applications of those principles. It is a mistake to confuse the two. When circumstances change, rules should change; principles don't.
As time goes by, we learn more about the culture, language, belief, and circumstances of the Bible writers. That should inform our growing understanding of the Bible.
I hear too much of binary thinking; black/white, right/wrong. A manifestation of this is, "If our understanding is different in some ways, previous understandings must have been wrong." But it's also possible that they were correct as far as they went, or correct to some degree, but not totally correct. Today's understanding can be better without making the old one simply 'wrong.' And without being simply 'right.' For myself, I hope and believe we will keep learning throughout eternity, that our understanding will get better and better.
Ed wrote:
"There are principles, which do not change, and rules, which are (at best), applications of those principles. It is a mistake to confuse the two. When circumstances change, rules should change; principles don't."
The problem here is when I wrote of doctrines you changed that to principles and now you contrast prinicples with rules. You are evading it seems to me, so yes my focus is not that clear because of the moving target. Doctrine is the teaching the instruction of the church, principles are in fact far less specific and far more subjective. Even when you give examples they are evasions of the specific inquiry I made which was about the Investigative Judgment. Then you move to principles our church was founded on, What does that have to do with doctrines? I would wager that if you and Horace were to offer the principles of the IJ you would not come up with the same principles.
You then go on to say that changes don't mean the original was wrong. But if you took your examples of inerrancey and verbal inspiration those are both in fact wrong, not simply better understanding, the orignals were wrong. Now you may argue about how much of something is wrong so that you can say it was not totally correct. But you still have the parts that were/are wrong. I can't think of any examples where the old was not wrong and the better understanding did not show the previous view wrong, maybe you can give us one but of the ones you mentioned the old were wrong and that would be for the other area…the Trinity which the founders would not agree with current Adventism.
The first step in correcting something is to realize you did it wrong. Change does not come without that admission.
I understand why you feel like I'm evading. That is not my purpose. I'm just trying to avoid a longer-than-my-original column reply. I was using verbal inspiration and inerrancy as examples of ideas that some members hold, but which were never official doctrine.
Let's take the IJ. For me, the important question is: Is there a pre-advent judgment? Our answer has always been yes. Our understanding of exactly what it is has changed over time, partially due to better understanding of the languages. If we explain it in somewhat different terms today, that does not qualify as repudiation of the doctrine, only a deeper understanding. If our answer changed from 'yes' to 'no,' then that would tell me our basic position was wrong.
In the early years, we went from the Sabbath beginning and ending at 6:00 pm, to sundown. I don't know if the former was 'official,' since that was 1859, and the church did not formally organize until 1861 and 1863. Again, that seems to me a refinement rather than a repudiation.
You may not agree with my position on that, but that's what I'm talking about.
Anyone willing to take on the Evangelism juggernaut in our denomination is not afraid to say some position was wrong. My belief is that "we know (only) in part, and we prophecy (only) in part." But my background as a teacher tells me that labeling everything partial and unrefined as simply 'wrong' is not helpful.
So your position is that the importance of the IJ doctrine is that God has a preadvent judgment. Now this is the same God that knows the future, knows the end since the beginning, who wrote the names of the saved on the books even before the creation of the world, the ones who Jesus says the Father knows who are in His hands and no one can snatch away. And yet the preadvent judgment has some importance?
And what you don't think that all the 1844 stuff is wrong, you can't move from a yes to no? No we as a church have to learn to say no were were wrong, to muddy the water does not help anyone.
"And yet the preadvent judgment has some importance?"
Yes. Because it is not God who is undecided.
No, I don't think "all" the1844 stuff is wrong. I'm not locked in to Oct 22, 1844, but it's close enough.
Yes that is what I meant by muddying the waters. you say God is not undecided…well then who is doing this preadvent judgment? Angels, devils, unkown worlds, you and me and all the dead people?
It matters little what your answer is because there is not scriptural support, but feel free to try.
"It matters little what your answer is because there is not scriptural support"
Well, thanks for clearing that up. I'll be sure to cross out all those verses.
Ah one of those kinds of people, people who can't read to the end of a sentence. Instead of trying as per the invitation "but feel free to try" you will just make a wise guy response, just cross out the imaginary verses. Enlightening to be sure.
I must admit the future of Adventism that you imagine looks just like the traditional Adventism you have just learned to speak less clearly. Not a good sign!
Information theory tells us that we can communicate any message to whatever degree of accuracy we want to, provided the bandwith is large enough. It also defines 'information' as 'that which reduces uncertainty.' And interestingly, there are two cases where reducing uncertainty and thus the transfer of information is impossible.
The first case is where uncertainty is total. In such a case, the receiver lacks the building blocks–the grammar and syntax, for want of a better term–and thus cannot begin putting the message together.
The second case is where no uncertainty exists. Since there is no uncertainty, to be reduced, no information can be exchanged.
Having grown up in the Adventist church I am well aware of its claims and deficiencies. You know you have no Biblical texts to support your theory of the pre-advent judgment being preformed for the benefit of the angels and the other supposed world beings. You know that and that is why you provide no texts. The idea you propose is based upon Ellen White's writings not the Bible. Hence the muddy confusion about the so called preadvent judgment.
Your explaination of Information theory (check out wikipedia on information theory) is quite inaccurate, unless you meant something else. But that is a pretty clever evasion. Saying, well you are certain there is nothing to back up a point therefore I can't show that point. Even though one instance would prove the others certainty to be incorrect. It apparently assumes that no one could change their views or be persuaded by logic or information. What a pathetic world view to have if that defines your opinions of other people. Even worse for a Christian…they might as well back up and go to the monistary.
As long as you continue to make preemptive strikes about what you think I believe, and what you think I'm going to say, this dialogue is not productive.
No kidding, getting you to answer anything has been like pulling teeth. by the way responding to what you say is hardly a preemtive strike.
I could help you and give you the likely texts you would use to try and support your preadvent judgment for the other worldly beings or angels. I cover them in my article on Maxwell's Larger View http://newprotestants.com/Grahamaxwell.htm
Oh wait that might be interpreted as a preemptive strike since you refuse to reveal to us your textual evidence. I would not think it would be this hard to get someone to share their beliefs through the use of the Biblical text. Live and Learn I guess.
Just to be clear from my conversation with Ed above I thought I would see what the Adventist church was saying regarding the pre-advent jugement and it extra worldly import. The Adventist World article on the Pre-Advent Judgment by Roy Adams writes:
"
It’s not wise to argue, as some do, that since God knows everything, a pre-Advent judgment is pointless. Such an approach, carried to its logical conclusion, repudiates the whole biblical notion of judgment—and not simply the idea of a pre-Advent judgment. There are intelligences beyond our own planet—created beings who, if the universe is to be secure, must be satisfied with the integrity of the divine process through which some people are saved and others lost.
So the pre-Advent judgment concerns much more than our personal standing before God, a point that becomes evident from a consideration of Daniel 7. In this chapter the “little horn” is clearly a major target, which immediately gives this pre-Advent activity a broad frame of reference." http://www.adventistworld.org/article.php?id=136
Notice the numerous texts given to show that "There are intelligences beyond our own planet—created beings who, if the universe is to be secure, must be satisfied with the integrity of the divine process through which some people are saved and others lost." Oh you missed that…well that is because they have none it is just a gratuitous assertion that they have no Biblical authority for. And remember this article is under the heading of Fundamental beliefs they are trying to use the Bible for their position.
Oh and the argument that the view that God does not need to have a pre-advent judgment or even an ultimate judgment is incorrect because God who created the Universe does not need time to perform a Judgment…He already knows and by knowing that is itself judgment.
But this article is apparently thought to be persuasive…I guess to people who already believe it, I can't see it being persuasive to anyone else.
Ron,
You are quite right…our doctrines, as in this example, rest on some pretty shaky "pillars".
I grew up SDA, but one by one over the years I put our doctrines to the test of an honest reading of Scripture…most failed. That was when I viewed the Bible as "The Authority", with a bit of EGW thrown in for good measure.
After all that struggle and testing doctrines one by one I was finally, through other pressures, forced to ask a better question: That of authority. I discovered that in fact the Bible is not "The Authority", and that to claim it is, is no more convincing than a Muslim doing so for the Koran, or any other faith for their "books" for that matter.
I now wonder why I did not start where I ended: Asking the last question (That of authority) FIRST?! Could have saved years of sifting the shifting sands of "interpretation" and "hermeneutics" and "textual analysis" and …you get it:)
This is where I think Ed is in a tight spot. I applaud his willingness to attempt to address the problem of our shrinking numbers. However, I see his unwillingness to "admit" theology as/is an issue as significant.
I may be wrong, but to me it suggests that deep down he knows that to allow theology into the arena as a possible "cause" of the problems he hightlights is to allow a "cause" to which there is almost no solution. At least not without a massive renovation.
Ed, this may not be how you see it, but I think it may reflect the thinking of many. It is so much easier to "see" causes to our problems that deep down we know we just may be able to do something about. We are at risk of developing a subtle "blindness" to that which deep down we know we are powerless to change anyway.
It's fascinating. If you knew me, you would know that not only was I willing, I intensely questioned every one of the doctrines–twenty years and more ago. One thing post-modern and contemporary audiences won't abide is pat answers, and they can quickly spot someone who does not speak from experience and conviction.
I have examined the evidence and come to–apparently– a different conclusion than you have. The fact that I refuse to be cross-examined by someone who makes sweeping assumptions, and makes ad hominem attacks doesn't mean I'm unsure or afraid to give my reasons.
I'm a teacher, and one thing I know is: readiness is everything. When someone is ready to learn, they will learn. When they're not ready, it doesn't matter how effective the presentation is.
I don't waste my time trying to help someone who is not ready.
Sorry Ed the last comment is self righteous claptrap. This is a public forum, you are not just responding to me or CB as I don't know to whom you are replying in the above. You are responding to everyone that may find this part of the thread of interest.
I don't really care about what you think about teaching. I question your techniques and assumptions about teaching, but in any case the bible says to be prepared to give every man an answer for the hope that is in you. It does not say that you can deny answering questions because you don't think the person is ready. Since when did you get the psychic ability to read someones mind and determine if anyone student or electronic presence on the internet is ready or not.
When I first read your column I thought you actually were interested in changing Adventism. I no longer think that is the case. Your actions are that of too many traditional Adventists who value tradition over reasoning and who bow the knee to tradition all the while claiming to abhore tradition.
When I first read your coment I thought you were interested in engaging in discussion, not just making sweeping assumptions, name calling, and ad hominem attacks.
The Bible also says "Warn a quarrelsome person once or twice, but then be done with him."
I'm done.
Whether Ed honestly examined the doctrines is a question only he can answer, but his "puffed-up certainty" about the ideas he expressed in the blog raise some doubts about his open mindedness.
Unless I am an idiot, it is clear that Ed takes substantial exception to the methodology and approach of the Evangelistic/Industrial Complex. I wonder if they consider him quarrelsome.
I have a suggestion to why our churches are attracting so few natives. We like theory too much. We offer cheap grace, cheap love, cheap discipleship. Let me define what I mean. The cheapest grace is the grace that is never extended to anyone who is undeserving. Cheap love is only ever given to people we like. Cheap discipleship is following Christ on sabbath and during campmeeting week. Jesus taught and lived a practical life. All the things he taught to others he also did himself.
Thomas,
Campmeeting week? I thought it was just Sabbath… (said with tongue planted firmly in cheek).
Ed,
It is encouraging to have someone of your stature and influence making such a bold statement about the future of the church. Simple trend analysis projects that, unless something happens to turn the situation around, by 2027 our church membership in North America will be half what it is today. Also, that trend is not unique to North America and is being replicated to varying degrees in other parts of the world.
Such a future would be hopeless if it were not for the uprising of those of us in the church who are unwilling to let it happen and recognize that growth depends on doing things differently. We're still in the minority, but growing and spreading hope. The biggest thing I've seen preventing further growth is the refusal by many who are tradition-focused to even consider the remotest possiblity that reality could be other than the model they have practices for so many years. So, if there is a blessing that will give hope to the transformation of the church it is that, in a few years, there won't be near as many of them around to fight the changes that are coming.
William,
Many thanks. Perhaps we can talk sometime. . . .
Ed,
Have you ever done a trend projection in Excel? That's what I did. The data was drawn from the church statisitical reports with a few assumptions added such as an average death age of 78. The 15-year projection was the midline "most likely" outcome. Like any projection, it varies some depending on the assumptions you impose. Reality will measure the accuracy. Still, whatever the results are 15 or 20 years from now, the neon issue here is our future decline in membership.
Illustrating the problem is easy. Fixing it is going to be the hard part because there is so much resistance to change. So, while the resisters are dying-off, we need a solution that works. I believe I have found it: immersion in the Holy Spirit. The experience in our church has been nothing short of revolutionary. Our last traditional evangelistic effort was some five years ago and our growth rate has been rising ever since. A few of those new members are new converts to Christianity. Most are transfers from more traditional Adventist congregations in the area who are enjoying the freedom for ministry and empowerment that they find. It is exciting.
Given our location and situation, our growth is also exciting.
Ed says,
"For the first forty years or so, this was a young people's movement. For more than the last forty, it has become an aging people's status quo."
Does anyone know what the statistics for Mormon (LDS) youth leaving their Church is? One thing I do admire is that they give their youth a real sense of mission and ownership. I can imagine a 15-18 year old who would otherwise be out the door but sticks around in the Church for the Adventure of an upcoming overseas mission for 1 or 2. Even the new GC President has endorsed the important of engaging our own young people in mission.
Can we develop a similar youth-mission culture in our own Church – especially those who grow up in it and are all too jaded by the hypocricy by the time they reach their teenage years?
Stephen,
Excellent questions. I don't know the current statistics for Mormons, but in grad school I studied the Mormon's success in transmitting their religious heritage from one generation to another, and wrote several papers on it. So I have had a long term interest in it. I have a good friend who is a Mormon, and have watched his children grow to young adulthood.
I have little doubt we could do better if we adopted some of their ideas, but that would require the kind of effort I suggested in the main column above. It would take an enormous amount of energy, and the very Evangelism/Industrial complex that has become part of the problem would rebel against such change.
It appears to me that the needed changes can only happen from the congregation and conference level upward. Above that level, even visionary leaders have very little leverage. Ideally, a conference president would decide to be a leader, a teacher (note Eph.4 where "pastors and teachers" is one gift) who devotes all his energies to changing the culture at the local level. Probably, it will take place one congregation at a time, when people wake up and decide to stop sacrificing their children to business as usual.
I don't know. But for as long as God gives me, my efforts will be to "turn the hearts of the fathers to the children," so that my children and grandchildren will have an Adventist church they want to be a part of.
Ed,
I only have anecdotal data about the Mormons, but it appears they have the same basic problem of retaining a declining portion of their youth. The Southern Baptists are having the same experience with numbers almost the same as Adventists.
Ed: Not too long ago a large, costly evangelistic event was held in a central location in Portland, Ore., underwritten by the late Bill Colson of retirement-home fame. A vast majority of the "response" to these very spendy meetings came from the Hispanic community. These first-generation Adventists "brought their friends" in the prescribed manner, and I could see that the first-generation Adventists were tremendously and genuinely supportive of the meetings.
I long ago concluded that public evangelism actually does more to solidify the faithful than to arrest the sinful.
Edwin,
Our experiences are similar. We spend a lot of money preaching to the choir.
Ed, and friends,
I read this article and the attached comments and my heart aches — both to to reconnect with the story and people of my youth (some might call me one of those "lost youth" **smile**), and also to restore to our thinking, our discourse and our lives, the true meaning of the word "church" — not as a co-opted term reduced to an idiosynratic concept for sociology of parochial religion, but as the name for the family of God. If we had a conversation with God, I suspect he would be puzzled that we speak of small and historically recent worship community as "the church," almost as though there were no "the church" in existence prior to the 19th century. I searched the discussion and find highly intelligent, caring individuals to whom I am drawn by appreciation and respect, and who I would like to know better, but I did not find much that reminded me of a worshipful hunger for God's leading, and the power of His hand in "our" plans and efforts. In Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Church," he begins with a provocative thought — by analogy to surfing — too often, those interested in building churches approach the task like a surfer trying to find a way to create waves, when in reality, God is the one who makes waves, and a good surfer is one who learns how to recognize God's waves, and how to catch and ride the wave that God is moving, not one who struggles to make his own waves. Perhaps if attention were focused more on how God wants to use the people who are gathered to Him within the worship community of Adventism, and less on, or at least on a level equal with analysis akin to business management, the fire of true evangelism might rise to raging inferno, and the faint flicker that seems to preoccupy so much attention would be remembered only as a warning against a return to former darkness.
With the love of Christ who calls us to fellowship, worship and love in Him, and whose love is, and always will be, what everyone is looking for,
Randy Billington
Randy,
Excellent point! How do we learn to see "God's waves" and ride them? Not by following tradition, but by connecting with the Holy Spirit as Jesus told His followers to do. But, how often do you hear people in the church even talking about the Holy Spirit in more than theoretical terms? Learning to connect with and follow the Holy Spirit restored my faith and revolutionized both my personal walk with God and my ministry (which is very non-traditional but quite effective at building the church).
Something that has puzzled me is why we do not look for how God is moving right now. It is recognised that there is a spiritual hunger among the wider community, yet we seem not to want to know. In Australia – or at least in some parts – we have various festivals and fairs where 'seekers' gather to sample the wares the spititual community has to offer. These were originally started by 'New Age' groups, so, predictably, the Christian churches have tended to shun them. I know it has been suggested in a couple of local SDA churches that we should get involved. In most cases, the suggestion has been declined in case we are somehow seen as given support to 'New Age paganism'. I know of one SDA church that decided it was an opportunity too good to miss. Here were thousands of people turning up over a weeekend to attend workshops on prayer, meditation, and other spiritual disciplines. They were obviously seeking the truth. So a small group from the local SDA church set up a table and gave out 'The Great Controversy' all weekend. Or, at least, they tried to. Apparently the 'seekers' were not that genuine, as few took the books, and some of those, who were probably just trying to be polite, either returned the book or threw it away after looking through it. There was not one single baptism, or even bible study, from the weekend, so that was added to the 'we've tried it before and it doesn't work' basket. If people are looking for practical help with spiritual disciplines, why we would offer them a history/prophecy book? Why not, if we must give away books, one on how to follow the spiritual disciplines from an SDA perspective? Why not answer the questions people have and try to move them towards asking better questions rather than jumping in with our answers to questions they ar enot asking? Perhaps it does come down to "that's not what we do". It's somewhat odd that a church that does not believe tradition has a place in our beliefs or practice is so captive to tradition.
Kevin
I agree with your wonderful idea to be a part of this group, but I can't think of a worse book to have distributed than this one! It is not a spiritual book (as getting to know God). Whoever came up with that idea was out of touch but at least they were willing. You last suggestions are where it's at.
Have a booth that invites people to talk about spirituality as you have suggested. Steps to Christ would have been so much better and even daring to tell that EGW was seen as a messenger. Actually EGW as a visionary could be a touch point in reaching the "new ager" or postmodern.
"Why not answer the questions people have and try to move them towards asking better questions rather than jumping in with our answers to questions they ar enot asking?"
Precisely.
Why do we have to make it about a question? People almost never ask questions, especially of strangers. And people who proffer answers in search of questions are shuned by us all.
How about just listening for how people are feeling … 'I'm thirsty … I'm tired … I'm lonely … I'm hungry … I'm fragil … I'm confused … I'm uncertain … I'm out of a job … I'm losing my house … I don't know what to do next … I've made some bad choices in life … My money just doesn't seem to last until the next check.
Bill,
Whenever I travel on business my prayer is that God will use me in some way to bless others. His answers have been as varied as the people I have sat beside. Listening to them, as you proposed, has been the key in the Holy Spirit's hand showing me when to speak and what to share. So I ask, how connected are you with the Holy Spirit to be perceptive to the interests and needs of people around you and to empower you to turn their attention to God for solutions?
William,
And what is the measure of Holy Spirit connectedness?
Love. It is the only identifying mark of discipleship Jesus gave.
Bill,
When you see God leading and empowering your ministry. I'll give you a 99% probability that the ministry He wants you to do has nothing to do with preaching, teaching a Sabbath School class, holding an elected church office or giving Bible studies. So, be observant of however God is leading you so that you can discover the ministry He wants you to do instead of the ones church traditions say you should be doing.
William,
I am not trying to be annoying. And … What describes a ministry that God is not leading and empowering.
The call to observance here is bewildering. Again, I'm not trying to be annoying.
Let's try this. The Good Smaritan had no sense of being on a mission or engaging in ministry when he tended to the derelict beside the road.
Jesus question was not about mission or ministry … it was about who the neighbor was.
So are we called to mission and ministry or neighborliness and brotherhood? These are states of being, not actions.
Actions are the result of beging, being is not the result of action … maybe … it feels helpful to me … you?
Bill,
You are not annoying because you are asking good questions. You are not alone in asking them.
You asked for a description of a ministry that God is not leading or empowering. Here's the test: Is it creating new believers and growing the church? The vast majority of traditional Adventist evangelism methods fail this test because, while they may bring people into the church, they seldom create new believers and typically produce only a short-term rise in membership numbers.
If we identify what is not empowered, it is only fair to describe what IS empowered and how to know it when you see it. The first result of every miracle Jesus performed was an immediate improvement in the recipient's life. They introduced people to the true nature and power of God and demonstrated how much he loved them. This aroused their interest and eventually led to belief.
A Holy Spirit-empowered ministry will demonstrate the power and love of God in action while building unity and harmony in the church. I have so many examples of these in my own ministry that I'm writing a book about it. There have been times when I needed a tool and someone walked in the door who had brought one without knowing it was needed, or brought materials that were used immediately. Or how God stretched three gallons of paint to cover walls that should have required eight. Or when the solution to a client's need was found in calling someone I hadn't talked to in five years. Or when my team works for a limited period of time and we feel like we're far from finished but the person declares with tears in their eyes that we must be angels because humans couldn't have done what we just did for them. (That's happened often enough that the ministry is called the "Angel Team.") How would you get a set of dentures for a woman whose remaining teeth have been rotting to stumps over 20 years? God provided that need, too. Let me tell you, that's real life improvement. When we visit her at her senior apartment complex she can't wait to tell her neighbors that we're friends from HER church.
Then there's the effect on the church. Gift-based ministries have transformed our church in ways we could only dream about. I am far closer to more people in the church today than I have been at any other church. We love each other. We're enjoying sharing God's love so much that we don't argue about doctrines because they just are not issues. Best of all, that loving fellowship is bringing people into the church and visitors quickly become members of the fellowship while they grow spiritually. Just like the miracles Jesus performed, that love makes them want to learn more about God.
Does this give you a new view on the topic?
Will be interested in your book. How far away are you from publication?
Rudy,
I wish I knew! Writing a book demands large amounts of time that I just don't have right now. My first took more than a year when I was unemployed and with lots of time on my hands. My second almost as long. I'm hoping for release in about one year. Right now my plan is to self-publish on Amazon for Kindle with print copies available as ordered.
In the example I gave there was an implied question – how can I make spiritual activities a part of my daily life? Handing out The Great controversy – no matter what worth the book has on its own – did not answer the question/meet the need the people had. I agree it doesn't have to be about a question. It can be about hearing needs (or felt needs) and doing what we can to meet them.
I think we are fixated on answering questions because we believe we have 'the truth', and that truth comes in the form of answers to questions. Both our bible study tradition and our focus on doctrines leads us to see religion as answers to questions. It is not surprising that our main evangelistic approaches – either based on archaeology or prophecy – operate on the basis of answering questions we lead people to ask (or that we ask for them), and then answer. I believe we do what we do because we want to see a clear path from the questions to the answers to baptism to church membership. If we start by listening to people, not only do we not see that clear path, but we also feel we are not in control of the situation, therefore do not control where the path will lead. We usually are, and usually attract, people who feel the need to be in control. "Everything decently and in order' resonates deeply with most SDAs. Going with the flow of real life is simply too chaotic for most.
Kevin,
Have you tried seeking the guidance and empowerment of the Holy Spirit to answer your question and lead you into effective ministry? I encourage it because that is how God turns ministry from something you must do into your life purpose. I tell people that "I work to earn a paycheck but I LIVE for my ministry because I enjoy it so much."
Yes. Sometimes I don't like his answer. Some of us, like Moses, need some time in the wilderness to see the wisdom of God's plan.
Kevin,
I understand. It took God a while to overcome my resistance. I'm so glad He did! I could have shortened that time had I surrendered earlier.
Very insightful, Kevin.
I must apologize to Ed for an earlier post. The issue of the creditability of Adventism to our children is a passionate concern of mine. In my passion I chose words that conveyed the idea that I was passing judgment of Ed's methodology or approach in presenting the Adventist message to young people. I know almost nothing about Ed's methods or approach in this area, so it would be presumptuous for me to pass judgment.
Having read the majority of the posts, it still seems important to express my objection to Ed’s point of view. Ed said "No matter how often I say or emphasize the next sentence, many will still go off on a tangent about changing our doctrines, but still it must be said. This is not a matter of theology, but of methodology."
This particular statement is a “smoking gun” in my opinion. It sounds like what Ed might refer to as “puffed-up certainty” that he himself acknowledges is a problem in Adventism. Apparently he has decided that “puffed-up certainty” about theology is not a danger. There have been in the last twenty to thirty years many new approaches and ways of communicating (methodology) the Adventist message to the young people of the church, but it has not reversed the trend. Given this easily observed phenomenon it probably makes sense to consider all the options.
It is probably true that very few young people are wrestling with theological issues and deciding to go elsewhere because they do not agree with SDA theology. However, that is not the same as saying that theology is not the problem. It would be absurd to claim that what we believe about God (our theology) does not impact the way we convey our ideas about God to others. What young people are rejecting is the fruit of our teaching, the attitudes, trends, priorities, and focus that emerges from the Adventist system of beliefs. They don’t have to wrestle with specific theological issues to recognize that most Adventists have a “puffed-up certainty” about real life issues with which they cannot agree.
In my experience when we as disciples of Christ become “puffed-up” it is almost certainly because we have a wrong view of God (out theology is wrong). When a large majority of loyal church members become puffed-up with certainty then it is time suspect there is a problem with the church’s theology.
Sometimes theology becomes confused with doctrines. 'Theology' of course can be used in two ways: what we believe about God, and how we express our beliefs and doctrines in a wider sense. I suspect Ed meant primarily that he did not believe the issue was with our doctrines. That may (or may not) be true, but we could still have problems with what we believe about God and how we express our beliefs even if we have our doctrines lined up correctly. I believe our problem is precisely in the area of theology, usually in both meanings. It is our view of God – expressed in practice more often than words – and the way we think about and explain our doctrines that is causing us to have problems with passing on our faith to both others within the church and those outside. On the whole, I don't believe the problem is with the doctrines themselves, but with how we live our lives based on either faulty or inconsistent thinking (or lack of thinking) about those doctrines. And, if I may be so bold as to 'steal' William's line for a moment, correction of this problem depends on listening more to the Holy Spirit and depending less on our own (or our favourite preacher's) ability to 'find the truth'.
Ed,
This is a brilliant and all too true column.
The problem is how to preach a revolutionary message of love and grace (in the context of our prophetic calling) when the establishment insists on preparing and fighting the last (doctrinal) war.
Can we be the catalysts for change, or will events force our hand?
The shame of it all… I believe that "events" will "force our hand." Why so? It is becoming more obvious by the day that the "Evangelism Industrial Complex" is not effecting our nation, muchless our world, for Christ. Therefore, there is no real force / power for good to stay the growth / development of the world's agenda to dominate / rule humanity once again. Acts 17:6 that the gospel that was proclaimed "turned the" then known "world upside down."
Biblically, proper theology has always led to the necessary / appropriate methodology. Not only have we become "the defenders of the doctrines", but our theology is somewhat out of whack as well. Hence our evangelism has a doctrinal / prophecy emphasis at the expense of lifting up Christ as the centerpiece / focal point of all doctrine / prophecy.
How does proper theology effect methodology? Jesus said: "And I, If I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Until we learn what it means to do this, we are doomed to continue to fail at reaching even our own families, muchless the world for Christ. And it is guarenteed, things will continue to get worse, and worse, and …
Laffal,
Our basic problem in evangelism is the concept that we must teach everyone everything before we accept them into our fellowship or count them as "believers." In other words, we try to teach too much before a person is ready to hear it. The results are obvious. People are not listening and we've gained a reputation for teaching certain things the rest of the religious community questions or rejects. Just as Jesus never taught a person everything, but instead taught what touched their immediate need or interest, we would find greater success if we did the same.
Ed Dickerson
Thank you for your blog on an extremely important subject. Though no longer called "new age" the concepts in the secular world about spirituality have been greatly influenced by that movement. I like Kevin's idea when he wrote about having a booth at a spirituality conference. Though he gave out the wrong book, his thinking was on the right track. Jesus and his disciples went out to preach to people where they were and spoke to them about things they knew and how they lived (agricultural parables much of the time). He did not overwhelm them with "doctrine." His theme was love and treatment of others and only towards the end of his ministry did he talk of the second coming.
I think we need to approach urban secular people the same way–gently and carefully and not to overwhelm them with theology. The postmodern world likes metaphor. Tell them they can use the Bible as metaphor at the beginning–it is after all what the stories mean that leads us to God than whether every detail should be taken literally–that is something that must come with time. First the people must learn of the love of God and Christ and that God is love.
They are attracted to spiritual disciplines; they like beautiful nature music and ballads and contemplation. And teach them the value of praise and prayer. Such an environment would need a special church plant that could go on in spite of all the criticism it would get. It would need more comfortable inviting furnishings conducive to holiness and meditation. There would be Bible study and health teachings, casual dress, promotion of vegetarian/vegan lifestyle that is increasing in this group. Bible study would first be focused on what it meant to the people and what God is like and the salvation story.
Because these people tend to believe in supernatural experiential things, Ellen White could be presented as a visionary and her books used; many are familiar with following gurus. We would have to change our churchy SDA terms and might even refer to her as a "mystic." They would understand that.
They would need to be prepared for the stark difference between Adventism as taught to them and the conservative church most of us know and then introduced into it gradually without culture shock.
If any of this makes sense, let me know; or is the church just not able to handle such difference.
If we are really interested in saving people instead of perpetuating an institutional image, we would be planting many of these "radical" new churches. I wish someone would just try it! At least once!
We have often said we have an advantage in the post-modern world because SDAism is holistic. I have yet to see that played out in our evangelism. We seem to want to focus not just evangelism, but everything we do on doctrine. I have a BA in theology and loved studying both sytematic and historical theology, so I am not against doctrine, but there is so much more to being a SDA Christian. We seem not to have developed other areas as much as we have doctrine. Even health does not go beyond being vegetarian for so many members. Perhaps we need to develop SDA spirituality further than we have. I know there is a big fuss being made in some quarters over spiritual formation (and I share the concern over 'centering prayer' and mindless meditation), but the Christian tradition is very rich and diverse. Perhaps we could go beyond theoretical study with just a Bible and a concordance and extemporaneous prayers without compromising 'the truth'. I have never understood why a church that was sustained by prophecy and saw so much evidence of God's working in its early days became so afraid of anything 'charismatic' or 'mystical'.
Ella, churches like you describe have been tried in Europe and Australia. And they do indeed attract a great deal of criticism from those who prefer the traditional way of doing church. I'd be surprised if something similar has not been attempted in the US. I guess the greatest problem with them is that their methods do not bring short-term success. It isn't like the evangelism crusades in other parts of the world that result in baptsims of hundreds after a few weeks of programs. But then, our more traditional churches are not exactly baptising hundreds either. It seems human nature to hold new ideas to higher standards than what is already being done. A traditional church that baptises 5 people a year is successful, an experimental church that baptises 5 people a year is 'not living up to expectations'.
Ella said, "Because these people tend to believe in supernatural experiential things, Ellen White could be presented as a visionary and her books used; many are familiar with following gurus. We would have to change our churchy SDA terms and might even refer to her as a "mystic." They would understand that."
If we begin to use the language of the confused religions around us, we risk creating confusion in the minds of those we are trying to reach. Paul said that the gospel was a stumbling block to the Jews of his day, and foolishness to the Greeks. Not much has changed. We don't need to adopt the confusing language of confused religion to preach the gospel. When we actually live the gosple, it will have an impact and people will be more likely to listen. We can make it simple, but we don't need to "dumb it down."
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31)
Jesus' life as recorded in the Gospels demonstrated what it means to ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Jesus continually broke down racial, civil, ethnic, social, philosophical, and religious walls that ruthlessly divided people in order for God’s love to flow through them. May we do the same.
Yikes! What business is it of anyone whether or not you have friends who are new agers, agnostics, atheists, or Buddhists? She had best not enter my place of business, because my customers, many of whom I consider to be friends, run the whole gamut, from evangelical Christian, through new age, to agnostic and atheist. They include pastors, yoga teachers, Hindus, university professors, etc., etc.
My point in the former post was merely that we need to choose our terms carefully. Some terms come loaded with a lot of baggage; some of which we would not want associated with what we believe to be truth. 50 years ago someone could say they had a gay time, and no one would be confused. Now, that would be interpreted much differently–even though the historic meaning is still valid. To refer to Ellen White as a mystic, would be misinterpreted. And, by the dictionary definition, she was not a mystic.
I'm am utterly amazed by the number of individuals willing to tear someone down for expressing their desire to keep young people in the church. As one of the "young ones" I can tell you it is displays like this that send the young adults for the doors! Everyone is so concerned with being right, doctrinally correct, and demonstrating intelligence that they have lost sight of the entire purpose of this post. How to keep our young adults/families in the church? I see Mr. Dickerson's post as a challenge to the establishment, I don't think anyone could successfully argue that it is working. What I don't see is anyone else asking the young people what they need. So quick to offer criticism and yet no clear offerings of a solution?
Held Inhishands,
I appreciate your honesty and concern and that as one of the "young ones" you care enough to come to this blog and dialog. I think as you read this blog there are some important distinctions to make. There are at least two camps of opposition to Ed Dickerson's ideas. There are those who feel his posture is an attack against the church and certainly they will oppose him. There are quite a few others that believe he has not correctly diagnosed the problem and is pointing everyone in the wrong direction to find the answers.
I for one fall in the last group and assure you that I care deeply about the young people. That is precisely why I have criticized Ed's ideas. I was once a youth in this church also and know that some of the things that I felt were wrong have only changed a little and some of the apparent change is really just lip service. After many years of seeing one approach after another devised to appeal to the youth and after deeper study of the scriptures I have concluded that it is some of the unbiblical ideas entwined in Adventist beliefs that gradually erodes the confidence of honest truth seekers.
If you read Ed's blog again you will find a very dogmatic statement about the problem being one of methodology and not theology/doctrine. Certainly choosing a more appealing approach, methodology, or packaging can add to the initial appeal of any pitch. But, in the end it is not the pitch that young people are walking away from. It is the product.
It doesn't matter how clever or persuasive our teaching methods are at convincing people we are right. Jesus said of religious teachers, "By their fruits you shall know them." We frequently take that too mean we should examine the character of the teacher and certainly that is included, but it also means examine the fruit of their teaching. It is time we honestly examined the fruit and trace it to the teaching that produces it.
Rudy,
I really appreciate the point in your final paragraph about fruits. Fruits of what? The Holy Spirit. There's our solution: connecting with the Holy Spirit. Doing that requires that we surrender our ingrained ideas about how things should be done and start learning from His intimate instruction. Only when that happens will people begin seeing the proofs of God's power in our lives that will convince them of their need to know God in the same way.
Held Inhishands,
There are a few of us who are listening, and doing what we can. You can see I'm in a similar position as many young adults, even though my children are all married. People here assume they know what I believe and begin countering it, while at the same time ignoring what I am saying. Goes with the territory.
AS I have written elsewhere, our young adults will stay when they see that our faith produces the kind of life they want to live. And if they don't perceive that, it's our fault–we're not living that vital faith. But young adults have questions, and they want honest answers– and they know that sometimes the real answer is "I don't know."
We have a vital small congregation where children and young adults plan and participate in every service. One family moved to town, and after trying the two traditional congregations, settled on our small group, even though they had come from a much larger congregation in their previous home. The pastor of the largest nearby congregation asked the mother why they attend with us. Her answer: It's the only place my husband and my children want to go."
We can be that place. It is not a matter of size. It is not a matter of theology–ours is not radically different than the other two congregations. And yet it is, because we approach the same fundamental truths from a different perspective, one that communicates with contemporary audiences. That is our challenge.
All the sturm und drang about theology only obscures the purpose of theology–to lead people into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.
Keep the faith, Inhishands.
Ignore the tempest that will follow this post.
My son is quite willing to tell me what the problem is without any questions being necessary. As so many of his complaints are the same as we made when we were young (that being the 70s and 80s in my case), and in many cases are still the complaints we have as we near the end of our useful lives, that I don't think knowing why people are leaving or what they want is the problem. The problem is moving a church whose main sin is inertia to do something about it, and convincing them that more of the same simply won't work. I have heard members in their 70s and 80s say that 'doing the same thing hoping for different outcomes is crazy', but they also can't believe that we need to change as much as younger members insist we do. They simply, from their perspective, cannot conceive of the answers given as being effective. It is not lack of goodwill – which is why I do not like the idea being expressed that the main thing we need is for old members to die (however nicely expressed that sentiment may be). You are asking elderly people – who have often been active, and successfully so, in bringing people into the church – to make decisions about a world they have never lived in. But asking them to step aside and let others make decisions is sometimes asking what is beyond their capabilities. They see many possible and probably dangers ahead, and that scares them. Risk taking is a scary thing to most SDAs, and that increases for all of us as we age. To step aside and let others take big risks that may damage the church is a very courageous choice, and not everyone can make it. I suspect also there is a degree of bewilderment. My own mother has expressed surprise, and some disbelief, that youth seem to see some things that her generation valued so much and that were instrumental in keeping them in the church as negatives. My mother recently told me that some of the youth working on Friday night at McDonalds was not so bad, as it is really an 'essential activity', so she is not exactly an ultraconservative SDA.
Kevin,
I can really identify with what you described because of what I remember from my youth and what I've heard from my children. That the challenge would remain unchanged over generations gives us good evidence of how long the root problem has gone without resolution. At the same time, the cure remains just as ignored and unchanged: our need of the Holy Spirit. Most of our churches are caverns of spiritual weakness filled with the sound of our own voices because we're not seeking the guidance and empowerment that we find in the Holy Spirit. Our challenge will only be resolved when we shut our mouths and surrender our concepts of how we should be winning souls to the whispered instruction of the Holy Spirit.
Keven wrote:
"As so many of his complaints are the same as we made when we were young (that being the 70s and 80s in my case), and in many cases are still the complaints we have as we near the end of our useful lives,"
This is why methodology is not enough. The church must deal with the larger problem. Take for instance Keven's statement about his son. What will the children of those who think the Adventist church as failed to answer their problems and questions of theology tell their children. Their children will become further away from the church because they see their parents can't even reconcile certain beliefs and the church does little or nothing to address the problems in theology. A few years ago the Sabbath School Quartely had a quarter on the Investigative Judgment and they toned down the specifics of the Churches belief a lot and yet few of the people under 60 thought they could accept that version and they did not see any particular importance to it. (of course this is from what I observed at my church and internet conversations).
The fact it seems to me is that the problem is compounding with each additional generation because the church can't or won't address the issues. Of course organized religion has had problems with the young for most of the last hundred years but now it seems more then ever the church as an organization who demands certain beliefs is really in out of step in America. Such things as the 17 million you tube hits on Why I hate Religion, but love Jesus. Religion becomes the problem when its demands or claims seperate people. And if one cannot see a good reason for some belief they simply will end it and so will their children
Ron said: "The fact it seems to me is that the problem is compounding with each additional generation because the church can't or won't address the issues"
I think there is a lot of truth in this statement. It involves social issues as well when church publications won't address the pros and cons of a difficult question that affects the whole church. The same is true in theology when a popular and scholarly new idea/interpretation can't get a fair hearing and minds are made up ahead of time. I think of how our pioneers studied and argued and held so many different opinions and over time came to their conclusions that should have been open to further knowledge. EGW said the same thing very clearly that time would not make something true that was not. But it takes discernment to tell the difference between the relevant biblical truths and irrelevant marginal "truths" or traditions. I doubt if our Biblical research people want to take that risk.
At the same time, I suspect that most young people aren't all interested in some of what we debate. Theirs is more an experential religion. How many even know what the IJ is about? And does it matter?
Theology often comes down to being a hobby for many–an interest. If you are interested in it,then it means a lot to you. Taking myself as an example, I was more interested in debating the rules against make-up, movies, and jewelry and if I would ever get married, than theology (until years later). Yet I considered myself a spiritual person. I don't think things have changed that much; most youth are quite shallow (like I was).
Ron said: "The fact it seems to me is that the problem is compounding with each additional generation because the church can't or won't address the issues"
I think there is a lot of truth in this statement. It involves social issues as well when church publications won't address the pros and cons of a difficult question that affects the whole church. The same is true in theology when a popular and scholarly new idea/interpretation can't get a fair hearing and minds are made up ahead of time. I think of how our pioneers studied and argued and held so many different opinions and over time came to their conclusions that should have been open to further knowledge. EGW said the same thing very clearly that time would not make something true that was not. But it takes discernment to tell the difference between the relevant biblical truths and irrelevant marginal "truths" or traditions. I doubt if our Biblical research people want to take that risk.
At the same time, I suspect that most young people aren't all interested in some of what we debate. Theirs is more an experential religion. How many even know what the IJ is about? And does it matter?
Theology often comes down to being a hobby for many–an interest. If you are interested in it,then it means a lot to you. Taking myself as an example, I was more interested in debating the rules against make-up, movies, and jewelry and if I would ever get married, than theology (until years later). Yet I considered myself a spiritual person. I don't think things have changed that much; most youth are quite shallow (like I was).
"Theirs is more an experential religion. How many even know what the IJ is about? And does it matter?"
Ella:
You have it exactly in those three sentences. They don't care about 'truth,' since most have been taught in the post-modern 'truth for me isn't necessarily truth for you' and 'there is no absolute truth–and if there is, you don't know it." But they are very interested in what makes life worth living, what makes life more enjoyable, more fun. No, they don't care about the IJ, except they love to argue about it. Some never outgrow that impulse. But they do find the notion of a God who is accountable inspiring. When we go to the trouble of speaking their language, of expressing the same doctrines in ways which are relevant to their lives, they respond. I've had this experience repeatedly. So I use the Simpson's, Star Trek–even Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer, Indiana Jones– and then show how these doctrines have value on 'Monday morning.' But "Adam's Mother's Birthda" is a non-starter.
Ed wrote:
"No, they don't care about the IJ, except they love to argue about it. Some never outgrow that impulse. But they do find the notion of a God who is accountable inspiring."
I don't think young people argue about it, most ignore it or find it a silly notion of an earlier age. But they seem to have to argue about it because there are those who want to perpetuate the IJ notion. It is sort of like the make-up Ella was mentioning. They don't see the logic of the old time stand against make-up and they make their case against the prohibition when it comes up. But make-up was not thought of as the reason the church exists so they don't have to argue about that nearly as much as when I was growing up.
As for the issue of finding the IJ inspiring if it is about the the accountability of God, when they are here on earth and they are not present at this supposed trial of God by supposed other beings the accountability issue is smoke and mirrors. We all choose to trust or distrust the God we know or hear about, we all make that choice but we don't pretend that we have sufficient knowledge to put God on trial. Well not logical people anyway. Which is why I really like what C.S Lewis wrote in his Essay God in the Dock
"The ancient man approached God…as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defense for being the god who permits war, poverty, and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that man is on the bench and God is in the dock. "
You can read my article on the subject at http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2006/09/is-god-on-trial.html
All the changes in the world to theology/doctrine will not make a bit of difference if the people delivering the message or the methodology is one that doesn't work! There are many so lost in the content of "being SDA" that they completely repel anyone who is not of like mind. If the people are warm, welcoming and living examples of God's love and grace the doctrine will follow. If a person approaches me with a tract that asks me where I am going when I die, I am not going to engage that person further. If a person takes the time to get to know me, my interests and my pain then I might actually have an inclination to find out more of who they are and what they believe. People are brought to Christ through people. Not by evangelists on a big screen or traveling through town for the week. And no, not by bible studies in homes either. If there is no established relationship or rapport you won't find anyone attending a home study group either.
If we believe, as we hear many say, that salvation means being in a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, then building relationships is the business Christians are engaged in. Everything else is details.
In fact, that is the overwhelming message of scripture. The relationship of trust was broken in Eden, and our mission is to restore that trust in God.
Ed,
So, how are we to build these relationships?
First, by letting the love of God transform us so we can be loving to others and sympathetic in their distress when we've been through the same or similar trials.
Second, by demonstrating the loving power of God as directed and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Jesus told His followers to go and make disciples of all nations. Discipleship is not the result of classroom instruction, but personal mentoring. So if we are to make disciples for Jesus, then we must get very personal.
Jesus performed miracles to demonstrate the power and love of God so they would have reason to believe in Him as their savior. Unless we are infused with the same power of the Holy Spirit, we are trying to spread light without the energy required to produce it.
It is a given that we need the Holy Spirit.
In addition, however, there are specific steps to building and maintaining healthy relationships. We can learn how to be intentional and appropriate in both aspects. That is something we emphasize all the time.
Timo,
"Dare we love like Jesus?" What a challenge! Let me share what has happened to me in the last two days.
Starting Sabbath afternoon, the Pathfinders had an overnight lock-in. I was asked to teach a class on how to use an axe to those working on a camping skills honor. As I was setting-up the training area I saw a man walking past who is known int he area as "can man." He is mentally challenged and often walks over 20 miles a day picking-up aluminum cans from the roadsides for recycling. He looks scruffy and dirty, talks to himself as he walks along, and often won't get out of the way of cars which then must swerve to avoid hitting him. Once before during a work bee on a hot day I saw him walk past and called out asking if he wanted a bottle of water. Did I have a Coke? No, but I had Gatorade. That was good and he drank all 20 ounces quickly before continuing on his way. This day he came right over and accepted the Gatorade that I offered. We talked for several minutes. His name was Eddie. He was heading to a friend's house. It was obvious that he had some sort of mental challenge, though I did not observe enough to identify it. "You're my friend," he said before continuing on his way.
Sunday I was out on doing some simple Angel Team-realted things because I was babying a sore back. (The Angel Team is the ministry that I lead. The first result of every miracle Jesus performed was an improvement in the life of the person receiving it, so we focus on improving lives by doing various tasks that improve how people live.) There is a retiree whom we've been helping for a couple years. Two of our members found her around the corner from the church in one of the worse living situations I've ever seen. To make a very long story very short, she now is in a retirement apartment community. But shortly after moving in she let her diabetes get out of control and spent nearly four months in the hospital and rehab. What I saw during my visit was that she was walking better than we have seen in the time we have known here. More than that, her daughter says she has more energy and enthusiasm than she can recall having seen in many years. Though not a member of our church, she is part of our church family. Obviously it is a blessing to her that is improving her life.
Last, a family in our church was finally able to move from a cramped apartment into a house. It all came together quickly and they asked for help at the last minute. All I could do was share about the need and wait to see who God sent to help. (I never know who is going to show up on these projects, but that is part of the adventure!) With my sore back there was no way I could help, but I drove by to check on the situation. Two young men from the church were finishing unloading the moving van. Inside, the single mother and mother were both totally excited about actually moving into their own home. What really touched my heart was their exclamations of thanks for the Angel Team because they couldn't have done the job without the help. Hearing that was such a blessing that I was several miles down the road toward home before remembering that my back was sore.
What happens when we dare to love as Jesus loved? Amazing things, that's what.
William,
It is great to hear that you and those you do ministry with have had a chance to effect lives lives in very tangible way for the good. Lives inspired by a connection to God and his love for the human family are certainly just as important as the Bible in teaching others what God is like.
If our beliefs about God don't change how we relate to other people then we can easily become evidence to someone that God does not exist.
A quote stolen from another forum. It seemed too on-topic not to do so. From somewhere in Spiritual Gifts IV I believe.
"… The servants of the Lord have trusted too much to the strength of argument, and have not had that firm reliance upon God that they should have. I saw that the mere argument of the truth will not move souls to take a stand with the remnant, for the truth is unpopular. The servants of God must have the truth in the soul. Said the angel "They must get it warm from glory, carry it in their bosoms, and pour it out in the warmth and earnestness of the soul to those that hear." A few that are conscientious are ready to decide from the weight of evidence, but it is impossible to move many with a mere theory. There must be a power to attend the truth; a living testimony to move them".
Kevin,
I think this statement can be twisted in a lot of different directions to agree with many different points of view. I can almost guarantee that this language will embolden those who already think their opinion and dogma is sufficient to backup their claims to the truth.
As that seems to be true of most statements, no doubt it is also true of this one. I like Ellen White's concentration on the need to live a life that testifies to the truth we believe. It doesn't devalue truth, but it does emphasise that truth alone will rarely convince anyone.
Kevin wrote:
"It doesn't devalue truth, but it does emphasise that truth alone will rarely convince anyone. "
Perhaps that is the problem, we don't really have the truth, we have claims that our beliefs are truth but that is not the same as truth. People are very easily convinced of the truth. 2+2 = 4, an easy truth to teach, fire burns numerous things another easy and convincing truth. But truth in the metaphysical world? We have little that is convicing because it is not demonstrable. So maybe the first step is to stop making the truth claims!
Ed got upset because I asked him to give me evidence for a belief, That itself is far from truth that is just a reason for a theory. But if you have trouble with those things then the claim of truth becomes even more difficult to concieve. We can claim to be the remnant and to have the truth and that you all need the truth, but claims are not truth and they often only serve to repell those with question and doubts about your honesty. It is easy to say we just need the Holy Spirit and we just need to love others, but it seems we need far more because when you have those things just maybe it means you will end up thinking differently about things like truth and how to relate to others. Or maybe it is the other way around you need to think differently to use the Holy Spirit and love others. Either way it does seem that there is a unifing theme there in thinking differently, and I think our church and our evanglism has not been willing to think differently at all.
"Ed got upset because I asked him to give me evidence for a belief."
Wrong on both counts.
It would be wise to refrain from characterizing my emotions or my unstated reasons. You have yet to be correct.
Exactly, a great illustration of dealing with black and white statements without the aid of any reason or evidence to support the statement. I mean who is going to care if someone just says to them you are wrong and worse yet you have yet to be correct. Without offering any support for the declaration. How does it profit anyone?
It is the kind of truth that can only be seen through one pair of eyes but no support is given for the so called truth. It is not going to convince anyone yet that seems to be the churches method of evangelism.
If only we would let the love of God in our lives speak more loudly than the words we love to speak about God!
Blah, Blah, Blah…….Turn off the TV, turn off the CD player, turn off the video games & quit worrying about sports and pick up the scriptures.
JaNe,
What do you know about the audience here that I don't. I could be wrong, but I doubt very many in the audience of this blog are exceptionally caught up in TV, Music, Video Games or Sports.
Rudy,
I have a response to something you said previously, but it duplicated itself. Check it out above.
Others, RE: perfect witnessing??
I would like to address this personal evangelism idea of witnessing by our lives. We all give lip service to this, but we (I) find it the most difficult thing to carry out. We know we are all sinners and make mistakes every day, and the Lord knows it.
Some of us are extroverts and others introverts. I cannot see myself approaching strangers or even neighbors with my beliefs, especially if they seem to be doing very well where they are. My neighbors would come across as better witnesses than me, and they don't go to church.
Even though my husband is not a church member, he is more outgoing and helpful than me. I have come to the conclusion that there are a lot of nonchurch goers out there who do a better job of serving than most of my Adventist friends and family. ( Yet we all have our areas of caring and helping that vary. ) I don't think many of us would stand out as great personal witnesses above our neighbors. I am not even sure God has called us to that. We all do what we can and put our families first, which we should. No matter what we do someone will not like our choices and even attribute to us wrong motives. They may even bear false witness against us and ruin our reputations and witness. So I am having a difficult time seeing my church or even Christians as being a special people above all others and appearing as more loving than the rest of the world. What do you think?
Ella,
Let me expand your concept of ministry beyond preaching, teaching, giving Bible studies and passing-out literature. The first result of every miracle Jesus performed was a direct, immediate improvement in the recipient's life. By doing that He demonstrated the true character of a loving and totally powerful god. This, in turn, led to many becoming believers.
It is God's promise to you that the Holy Spirit has already empowered all who believe. So, how are you already empowered? How many ways are there to demonstrate God's love in personal encounters?
Let me tell you a little story. It was a few days before Christmas. I was in Boston waiting to get on a plane to Atlanta when I saw a young family where the parents were struggling to both manage children and get things like their strollers to the plane. Before I travel I always pray and ask God to give me the opportunity to bless someone. They didn't have enough hands, so I stepped forward and offered to lend a hand. I carried their extra cargo to the plane, then waited outside the plane in Atlanta to continue with them to their next flight, which was in a different terminal from my connecting flight. They were very appreciative. I told them that I needed to confess something, that they had been my answer to prayer and I wanted them to have a happy time with the grandparents in Phoenix. They looked at each other in surprise. As I turned away, I heard the wife say, "Well, that answers our question." I turned back and as our eyes met she told me they had been talking that morning on the way to the airport about whether or not God was real and if they could trust Him. My actions had just answered it.
God has a ministry for you that matches you in every detail. Have you asked Him to reveal it to you?
I understand what you are saying and applaud your helpful deed at the airport. I like to think most of us here would do the same, but so would many nonbelievers. In this case God used you to answer their question. I am not so much talking about being a caring person on a day-to-day basis (even nonpracticing Christians and Jews and others do that). I mean having the assertiveness to approach people about our faith without making it seem they are a possible convert we are seeking for our own gratification.
Actually I would like giving Bible studies with someone else to someone who was truly interested. I like talking to people of different faiths and exchanging ideas. I shy away from casual conversation. But I am not assertive enough to knock on doors or approach people I know unless they start the conversation, and that rarely happens.
I used to write articles and get them published, but I don't find the time for that now. I guess that would be the area where God would use me. And I love to learn, and I think outside the walls of a church institution. I would like our church–I would do it, but others could do it better–write Bible studies for secular people that lean towards new age concepts. I want to see us get into that people group.
Ella,
I applaud your desire to create studies that would be attractive to or useful with the secular-minded. For several years I worked with the Faith For Today television ministry. That is the stated reason for which it was established and why drama was used. I remember once when we aired a special in the Atlanta TV market that drew more responses that week than the combined total received by other Adventist media ministries in that market. Guess which one was panned by church leaders for being "ineffective?" Faith For Today– because we weren't preaching. Which is exactly the very last thing the secular-minded are attracted to and most likely to avoid.
There are many degrees of "secular-minded." Instead of targeting your efforts at achieving such a goal among a group of people who are so common and diverse, I would like to suggest that you simply ask the Holy Spirit to bring people to your attention with whom you can identify from common experience and who would be receptive to what you can share. Then watch to see how He answers your prayer.
Yes, I hear you. the institution is more interested in selfperpetuation than in directing more people to Jesus. The greater fear by our leaders is that we will be polluted by the world rather than taking the Gospel to it. It's a lack of faith in the power of the Holy Spirit. Could that be called grieving the Spirit?
I will take your advice. I have a trip coming up in two months that will give me that opportunity. Pray for me.
Why wait for the trip to get started? How about tomorrow where you are, or whenever the Holy Spirit wants to use you?