Good thoughts Rich. I'd like to know where the action phase is to be. Should we not be ddoing the work of Christ through feeding the poor, helping the sick, being active in Social politics etc? In the story of the sheep and the goats how does evangelism fit in? Isn't it the personal evangelism that you and I do for Christ that makes the difference? Just some thoughts.

Dan

Insightful critique, Rich. As I was reading, I couldn't help but think that your view of outcomes obviously depends on your benchmarks. If growth in numbers is his only benchmark (which it seems to be), then he won't look for where Christians (Adventist and otherwise) are living out their faith through missional living, loving their neighbor, and getting involved in the issues of our time.

I'm reminded of a similar critique Pastor Ryan Bell made of a piece by Mostert in the Recorder last summer: http://www.ryanjbell.net/intersections/2007/08/the-pacific-uni.html

Rich, I appreciate your close reading.

You elucidate a flaw in historical perspective that reveals a deeper problem in evangelistic methodology. To wit: this broad-brushing of differences between the horse-and-buggy days and our hurtling-towards-singularity daze leads to fundamental flaws in methodology.

For instance, last week I arrived at work downtown in San Francisco and our (non-Adventist) office manager was holding a DVD (apparently slipped under all the doors in our building) that promised truth about Final Events. She wondered, peering at the pixilated images, if it was anti-global warming propaganda before tossing it in the trash. When I explained one could watch it and find the truth about the end of the world, Catholic takeover, and all -- she laughed. Now maybe I didn't trust God enough as Clouzet would like, or maybe a building of college educated young professionals has more interest in creation care than destruction.

But hey, I'm not an evangelism expert.

Kudos to Rich and to Ryan for both your takes!

This is the kind of stuff that I keep hearing from leadership that just starts to get under my skin... the Adventist church is not growing in North America because it is the fault of lukewarm members.

I guess it has nothing to do with the fact that for years we have often focused on eschatological pre-occupations, lifestyle and doctrinal distinctives, and other denominational phobias, that are totally off the radar screen of today's average person.

I guess it has nothing to with the fact that we have not updated our macro-organizational structure since 1901. Or that many conferences still move pastors around every three to five years, thus stopping churches dead in their tracks from finding and implementing a coherent long-term vision and structure.

I guess it has nothing to do with the fact that many Adventist churches still have no structure in place to truly train/mentor people in the life of involved discipleship. We have made sure that all the doctrinal i's are dotted and t's are crossed, we baptize and bring them in, provide little in the way of meaningful involvement, stress that they pray and pay, and then say that it's their lukewarmness that is the cause for stagnancy. No wonder why the back door is often as busy as the front.

I am in no way meaning to downplay our personal responsibility. This is vital if the church is to be vibrant and flourishing. In addition, I am thankful that the Atlantic Union is hosting a SEEDS event this month, to begin to bring the necessary resources within reach of its members.

However, I simply am tired of hearing another harangue from a leadership that I feel also needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror concerning their part in this, too. A failure to lead, a lack of vision, a lack of courage to move out of traditional views and methodology, can also contribute to the ill-health of an organization and its individual members as well.

The church is no exception...

Frank

Rich

Thank you for your excellent reflections!

It puzzles me that some apparently think it helpful for the shepherds to keep whipping the sheep, and all the harder each time around.

This rarely does any good. Besides, SDAs invest much, time and energy in the work of the church, so much so that the leaders of many other denominations would love to have our "problems."

Our people deserve to be thanked, not reproved.

More generally, I think it a good idea for this blog to be a place where people like you can thoughtfully respond to what's published elsewhere in the Adventist world.

When we don't speak up we leave the impression that there is only one SDA point of view when in fact this is rarely the case.

Thanks!

Dave

Hey all these numbers!! "In the 1860's and '70 the growth was 18.6%, exceeding the population growth. Had we continued growing at that rate, everyone in the world today would be Adventist, waiting for Jesus return"

How about if we had worked on retention we would be much larger than we are today.

Is this the goal for all the world to be converted to Adventism before Jesus will come?

Mitch
La Mirada, CA

As well as failing to understand our current context, such an approach also seriously misunderstands our history.

The Adventist church has NEVER been “successful” in stable, developed societies.

It first growth came in a small area of New England which was renowned for its spiritual upheaval. After briefly plateauing its membership then increased when it targeted the edges of expansion in the United States (Michigan, and then later following the move west and on into California). Our church grew in these areas when they were frontier territories- membership stopped growing in them when the communities became stable. Later US growth was the result of work among various immigrant communities. Our message only led to “successful” levels of growth when people were going through stages of transition.

The church first hit the brick wall of stable communities when it sent missionaries to Europe. Church growth there was (and still is) almost flat (our only large growth levels here were for approximately 5-10 years after the fall of communism in eastern Europe- levels there are now back to pre-fall growth rates). Our missionary efforts only really became “successful” when we found in Australia conditions similar to that in the US during the expansion. Even today it is clear which parts of the world respond better to our missionary efforts!

Of course this leads us to the question why (the question Ron Clouzet should be asking)? Are certain people in certain situations simply more open to the Adventist message, or is our theology only really attractive to a certain group of people. If it’s the later, do we simply accept that we will never be “successful” or do we look at our theology and see if there are other aspects which we can emphasis that will engage with our contemporary context?

Hi D.E.,

Hope you don't mind the abbreviation. Thanks for the historical overview of SDA growth patterns in relation to developing vs. stable societal conditons.

I have more whys. Why is it that churches like Saddleback, a church that preaches and models a message of genuine committment to Jesus Christ, are reaching stable and upscale communities like Orange County, California? What are they doing that we are not? Are aspects of our theology that much of a barrier...is Sabbath, for instance, that much of a turn-off (though I feel that we often use this as an excuse)? Is it the way we present our message that is creating the problem? Or is it a more multi-layered complex of problems that embraces faulty theological emphases, failure to seriously and vitally engage our culture, antiquated methodology and organizational structures, lack of visionary leadership, etc.?

I'd appreciate any and all feedback.

Thanks...

Frank

Frank: you write "Why is it that churches like Saddleback ... are reaching stable and upscale communities ...? What are they doing that we are not?"

I hesitate a bit to weigh in here as I do not wish to be divisive and that will be a risk. My personal label for your question would be "The Willow Creek Issue". As you likely know, there has been, in perhaps the past decade, a love-hate relationship between the Adventist Church and Willow Creek. Many Adventist leaders (lay and denominationally-employed) have attended seminars there. And as you can imagine, reaction has run the gamut from gaga to resentment. Resentment has taken at least two forms that I have seen. One is essentially: how can we learn from Babylon? The second is: sure they grow, but that's because they dispense Bread & Circuses.

To illustrate, I refer you to this 2002 address by Elder Jay Gallimore, Michigan Conference president: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/gal-relevancy.php3.

More recently (I believe a year ago) Willow published a multi-year study of their own programs and found serious deficiencies - by their own metrics. See: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2007/10/willow_creek_.... Again the reaction was wide-ranging. From 'aha, the Emperor has no clothes' to appreciating the transparency of an organization that would go public with such self-criticism.

Now I worry a bit that for some, if you read the Gallimore speech, it will punch your 'rant mode' button. Please resist. There are no bad guys here. But having said that I confess to serious impatience with my church if leadership does not seem to be thinking carefully about cause & effect, rather just announcing various goals and programs (remember the 1000 Days of Reaping & its clones?). The famous quote about history repeating itself applies here, I think.

Hi Rich...

I've read Galimore's article, and the Willow Creek self analysis. I did not mention Willow for those reasons...to avoid the barb throwing from within our own ranks.

But not every church 'mega church' is Willow. Maybe I don't know enough about Saddleback and others like it, but there seems to be a wave of churches that are reaching Americans of all stripes in a way that is more than just 'a mile wide and two inches deep.' We have one in NYC called Journey Church. It has divided into smaller groups all throughout the metropolitan area and is growing exponentially.

We have another that began in the late 80's and held their first services in an Adventist church in Manhattan...Redeemer Church. Ironically, the Adventist church is still in the same facility, and has been for generations, but this church outgrew it within a decade...moving into thousands of people touched by and reached for Christ. Both these churches have embarked on significant community involvement as well. They are making a kingdom impact...here in the "highly secular and liberal" urban northeast...NYC, hardly the bible belt.

This is why I am asking, why? I agree, personal lukewarmness can be part of the issue. But something larger is wrong! Both attitudes, 'we can't learn anything from them,' and 'they grow because they dispense bread and circuses,' display a fear based mentality laced with arrogance. This can be a problematic attitude for both individual members and churches, as well as administration when dealing with these issues.

If we are to be truly progressive, and to be part of the progress of the kgd., should we not be open to honestly looking at and correcting our errors(at least Willow is)? Should we not be open to truth, even if it's coming from 'outside Jerusalem?' Can the magi be visiting again?

Openess, and vision with wisdom and discernment, and the courage to model this coming from our leaders would be welcome. Taking into account all the possible factors that have us stagnant, and how to address such factors would also be refreshing, instead of just another finger pointed at our Laodiceaness.

Frank

You raise great questions Frank (and D.E. et al). The eschatological focus of most outreach efforts just don't speak to a modern person, especially in an urban environment. Like Alex, I wondered at the efficacy of blanketing the city of San Francisco with free copies of the Amazing Facts "Final Events" DVD. Surely some committee somewhere thought that was an efficient way to try to introduce people to the church and bring in more sheep. But again, we have to ask, who is attracted to something like that? Is that authentic growth? Do we feel that the world needs to be Adventist? (And, another topic, but does an Adventist have to endorse the eschatological views presented by Amazing Facts?)

Many of my college friends are now in their early thirties, and many do not attend an Adventist church. Several attend a Saddleback type church (even Saddleback) because it feels like a vibrant, inclusive community where they can imagine bringing their children. I myself don't attend an officially-sanctioned church--but it's probably one of the few urban church groups growing through authentic growth (i.e. relationships).

This comes back to MItch's point about retention. It's an insightful question because often the same tactics that the "shepherds" choose to promote and fund (when not berating the lukewarm "sheep") are the very types of program that might show initial growth, but since that growth didn't happen authentically or organically, it quickly tapers off.

Frank: Amen, and amen! It is precisely for the reasons you articulate that I wrote the piece. In addition, I personally envision Spectrum/Forum to function as a voice-of-conscience and 'loving goad' to the corporate body. If we push back persistently and without ad hominem-flavored prose, perhaps dialog can ensue that truly pursues root causes.

Daneen: I didn't realize that Alex's comment referred to an Amazing Facts DVD. This reminds me of the classic 'Gospel Blimp' story, if you are familiar with that: http://www.gospelcommunications.org/film/northamerica/gospel-blimp/.

The issue here is whether we care to think about our audience and message. Or just be content to write a check to someone else who is confident that their content/delivery effectively fulfills the gospel commission.

I'd like to mention one factor that I sometimes overlook when thinking about the success of Churches like Saddleback: MONEY!

I try to imagine what any one our congretations could do if it could retain 90% of its tithe? The difference boggles my mind!

SDAs are unbelievably supportive. After they have paid 10% for tithe, they pay another 2-3% to finance their own congregation's need and then they often pay tuiton for their children to attend our schools.

This would be unthinkable in any other denomination.

It is true that some of our "sectiness," which we should retain and sometimes intensify, will always hamper our growth somewhat.

But our congregations are bearing an unbelievably heavy financial load to support the world-wide efforts of our denomination and to some extend that should always be so.

But our local churches and local leaders--clerics and congregants alike--deserve a financial chance to succeed. In my view they don't have it now.

Thanks!

Dave

But which came first at Saddleback...the money or the members? Which came first...the money or the retaining of said members? Chicken or the egg? Consider though, that at their first public meeting, 205 people were in attendance, off a shoe-string. Rick Warren clearly tapped into something that we have not managed to do.

I agree that the distribution of monies acts as a drain, seriously hampering our local churches. But, I believe the problem is much more multi-faceted than lack of financial resources at the local level. That is merely one symptom, I believe, of a dysfunctional organizational structure and philosophy that needs to be rethought.

Diana Butler Bass - who is the guest writer on the other thread about Wright - wrote a very interesting book called Christianity for the Rest of Us. She goes in search of mainstream congregations that are flourishing to see what they are emphasizing and how they are growing. I thought it was a wonderful book and it gives another perspective to the argument that mainstream churches are dying while evangelical mega-churches are taking over. It is not a scientific study full of numbers or graphs but it does isolate common themes that she sees in these churches.

Thanks, Beth!

Sounds like something I'd like to read through.

Frank

We have one of those mega-churches in our area. I have often wondered what their secret is. Why are they so popular and growing so fast? Why did our friends leave our church and start going there, where they’ve remained now for probably 8-10 years? What need inside them was so unfulfilled that filling it could quiet the guilt of straying from an admitted belief-system that included the 7th day Sabbath? What pulled them away from us AND what drew them there? I still often contemplate this but, though I don’t claim to have it all figured out, after visiting this church and after spending time talking with our friends, I do believe I’ve found one of the keys to this church’s success. At least it was what eventually took our friends away.

What was it? It was this: small, multiple, home-based, very theme-specific “Life Groups.” It was in these small groups that our friends found they were finally able to be open and honest about their personal, everyday-life struggles because these groups dealt with “personal, everyday-life struggles” such as: divorce, drugs, pornography, paralyzing debt, blended families, etc, etc. They weren’t put down, or thought less of, because of the issues they grappled with. They were listened to and cared for by others in like circumstances, some of who were able to share positive solutions to similar problems. Our friends formed extremely close-knit bonds with those in their group, often socializing together with them in other settings. They became like family to them. If one family was in need, the others came to their aide. They were happy to set aside time just to be together. It fed them in a way that I believe God meant for them to be fed.

Families in the 21st century have, I believe, almost no similarities to 19th century families - or 19th century communities, for that matter. (Do I dare include 19th century churches?) We are living increasingly harried, stress-filled, fractured and singular lives. Evangelistic methods that worked during the early years of our church have, for the most part, very little appeal to a high tech, fast-paced and relationally disconnected generation. We have everything we need, except for one thing. We don’t have meaningful relationships. We want a place to be safe when we are vulnerable. We want a place to be loved unconditionally when we are faulty. Yes, I really do believe we are a nation of lonely people. And, yes, God is to be the Ultimate Friend. But, until then, we Christians are often who the world looks to first.

One-on-one evangelism seems so overwhelmingly slow considering the masses. “Lets have large meetings and bring them in by the droves,” except for one problem. We end up losing so many of them in the end, because they are lonely. I’ve watched as meaningful friendships have triumphed over doctrine and pulled them away. Friendships first, please, doctrine will follow in due time.

P.S. This type of evangelism, incidentally, comes from the ground up, not from the top down. It comes from the heart, not the G.C.

Hi Beth and Frank,

Just want to add in a pitch for Diana's book.

http://www.powells.com/biblio/9780060836948?&PID=29218

It provides some good counter-balance to the inflated media meme of dying mainline churches. Not that many little local mainline churches aren't low of energy, but there are emerging exceptions to that stereotype.

Middle Church in Manhattan RCA
http://www.middlechurch.org/

Plymouth Church in Minneapolis
http://www.plymouth.org/

Sausalito Presbyterian
http://www.sausalitopresbyterian.com/spc/go

Scottsdale Congregational UCC
http://www.scucc.com/our_staff.cfm

Grace Cathedral
http://www.gracecathedral.org/forum/

I can count four non-Adventist progressive churches I've visited recently (and one I'd like to) that combine arts, very intelligent pastors, genuine spiritual warmth and commitment to social justice. And they are growing without haranguing their members to be more like Doug Batchelor.

I know that at least two of these churches work with their local business and arts communities and bolster their witness with local grants which they use to put on very creative worship services.

It appears that we're paying someone to harangue us to do his job. If our evangelism institute director's idea of mobilizing the church for growth is to imply that folks like my grandparents who have been faithful members, but never "won a soul for Christ" don't trust God like he does, I can understand why some might financially recoil.

Hi Gaylene,

Thanks for your comments. At my local church, we are heading down this same path, training and mobilizing our members for small, house group ministries. We view this not as simply another program to add on to a roster, but a total shift in the way we 'do church.'

This came out of taking a hard look at why we were stagnant, graying, and simply spinning our wheels for years, and why other churches like you describe, have been so successful in touching and changing people's lives for Christ. We now have a pastor who is leading the way, urging all to get on board for the ride...an exciting chapter is beginning to unfold, I believe.

I agree that this must start from the ground up, not the top down, from the heart, not the G.C. However, my concern was not that the upper levels of adminisration should somehow do this for us...obviously not their place. My concern has been how policy and practice have worked against us at the local level to organize and mobilize in this way.

We tried to begin this process twelve years ago, but trying to accomodate ourselves to four different pastoral changes, concerning which we had zero input, stopped this dead in its tracks. This is not something that a local church can just do pall-mall on the enthusiasm of a few members...the church needs strong pastoral leadership to endorse such change, train the membership, and lead the way. With so much pastoral instability foisted upon us from above, it made this virtually impossible.

In addition, as we initially tried to get this off the ground, we were informed that conference leadership was going to bring in 'Amazing Facts' to do 'evangelism.' That was their vision of reaching our community. Some of us were insisting that it wasn't the right time, that we were trying to go a different route, but in the end, the conference financial subsidy to support the 'tent meeting' and, suspicion of being 'anti-evangelism' if we turned our back on this 'opportunity,' won the day. The balance of the year was taken up with prepping for the event. It came and went, and eleven years later we have one member left and no lasting outreach ministry as the result.

I'm not trying to cry the blues. What I am saying, is that leadership on every level needs to be on the same page, not working at cross-purposes if these types of local level initiatives are to have sustained success.

To me, the articles that Rich and Ryan reviewed do not take into account these kind of larger dynamics. They over-simplify the problem in many ways, and leave the reader feeling like the growth problem of the church is solely thier's because their committiment is lacking.

Many committed people can become frustrated people when leadership functions in the way I've just described. Only after years of such frustration are we finally emerging from the morass.

The church is not just a collection of individuals to whom Jesus says, go. It is his body of gifted people, who according to the Scriptures are to be equipped by leadership before we go. We are his body that needs effective vision casting by effective leadership so we know where we are going and how we are to get there.

The articles under review offer none of this. They simply offer familiar spiritual generalities and partial or even mis-diagnoses of the problem, without admitting any mutual culpability.

Thanks...

Frank

Hey Alex...

Thanks for the links. Will be taking a look.

Enjoy...

Frank

Thanks for the links and suggestions. I know my close friends/family who go to large, Saddleback-like churches go because of those small groups you mentioned Gaylene (and, really, while they'd like to go to a church that espouses the beliefs they grew up with, it just isn't that important what day you worship on in comparison to the depth of relationships they cultivate--many of these churches have Saturday services anyway since they're big enough to). They feel that these groups are places where they can be honest, authentic, and active--nobody is putting on their "church" facade. I agree that we need and want community--but it has to be a place where people are free to be themselves, express their doubts, and explore how they go about enacting their faith in their own lives.

This sort of community looks nothing like the types of numbers-driven evangelism that the "higher-ups" envision when they write columns like the one Rich is critiquing.

This provides the type of environment, honesty, authenticity and connection, that one finds in good 12 step groups. Any wonder why the programs have grown? People go just as they are; no one tells them they have to measure up; they just have to keep showing up; work the program; get connected; and they get well!

Carol Cannon, in 'Never Good Enough,' wrote about the 12 step phenomenon in a chapter called, 'When the Holy Spirit Came to Akron.' In it, she details the beginnings and growth of AA. It's this type of community and healing that is indicative of the Spirit's presense, not numbers and reaching numerical goals.

AA talks about reaching others through 'attraction rather than promotion.' When people come and find acceptance, connection, and recovery as a result of such fellowship, that is attractive!

Something to reach for instead of what is often proposed in our neck of the woods...

Frank

I have been traveling and not keeping up so I just read this. These guys that turn out these guilt articles should be just shut off. Maybe somethimg is not happenning because they have taken a left turn and now don not even know where the mountain is. So in turn the leaders themselves turn on those who are following and blame them. I don not feel sorry for them or myself but for those who would believe them and keep following.

As for the matter of great church growth, maybe it would be best for every church to tend their sheep. Maybe a well kept flock would naturally increase. Maybe a call to faith has nothing to do with forward thinking growth plans and power point presentations but with a simple plan of tending the flock at hand.

Frank, I read you post about JourneyChurch and Redeemer Presbyterian in New York with much interest. I've been living in New York a little under two years now and currently attend the church that used to rent to Redeemer when it was first planted. I've been ruminating about this issue out of personal interest.

I've attended Redeemer several times and have become quite the fan of Tim Keller, the senior pastor there. (Their introductory brochure, by the way openly mentions both our local church and the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the history of the congregation.) His preaching is unlike any other kind of preaching I've heard in the Adventist church or else where--he's not young, he's not very charismatic (at least in the conventional way), he teaches more than preaches (he's very conversational/"lecturey" ), and he engages very tough intellectual issue referencing contemporary and historical writers from all over the spectrum, is Biblical, and always ties the issue to Jesus/the gospel/the cross.

Some of his sermons are available here: http://sermons.redeemer.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&...

What is amazing is the auditorium/church full of people that sit there listening to what some might label as boring, dry, and heady material.

All this to say, Keller's thinking/teaching abilities, amongst other things, play a major role in the success of Redeemer.

As Adventists, we're not very good at engaging culture in this way. Traditionally, our methods have focused on convincing other Christians that they should keep the Sabbath...In New York, most people are not Christians, and the ones that are, are Catholics and Anglicans. I talked to one that actually is attending our church, but went to another Adventist church in the city one weekend and was deeply offended by the anti-Catholic sermon he listened to. (I'm amazed that he still attends our church.)

Another related important issue, in my opinion, is the issue of immigration. Most the church growth here, as in other urban areas, seems to be coming from immigration--there are many wonderful Latino, Frano-Caribbean, etc. Adventists here and the conference is busy trying to keep all groups happy.

Unfortunately, the form of Adventist that is practiced/taught/etc. is largely unintelligible/unattractive to your "average" (if there is such a thing) New Yorker.

I believe that this is more than just a cultural issue. The theology is different--heavily eschatological, heavy on standards and Adventist distinctives, etc. , and the product of the traditional evangelism methods we've developed, used, and exported here in U.S.

Now it's being imported back in...We reap what we sow.

The preoccupation with Church growth is a very selfish benchmark. Once upon a time, the doctrine was "closed door". Only those who accepted the "Loud Cry" could enter. Then they and their chidren, then the number was 144,000 and then 144,000 men. Then we started counting the countries we had entered, then the churchs and companies registered.

Now the door is open both ways! The title implies that we should go up and seize the "Promised Land". I think the Scriptures tell us, that Jesus Christ as Lord of Lords is coming to get us! Thus the other fret: "Why Jesus Waits!" We an't good enough. So we live in a dilemma: we are either too
cowardly or too wicked.

Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior? Have you made it plain to the world around you? Have you in any manner helped the Good News reach someone who haan't heard?

If so, what your problem?

God doesn't work on your time table or mine, not even Pat Robertson's--note even Pat is grooming his son to take his place. Its best to hedge one's bet!

I like the first song I learned: "Brighten the Corner Where You Are!" It was in the basement of the old Chapel at E.M.C. The year was 1928. I've got a lot of miles on me since that year but my faith, hope, and love are stronger than ever. Even yet I stumble and fall. "Lord help thou my unbelief." Tom

Zane,

Interesting that you and Frank mention Redeemer Presbyterian (PCA). I am glad to hear the good report. He spoke once and gives occasional D.Min.courses at RTS. Of Course some would consider him to be "fundamentalist" due to his strong understanding of Biblical inspiration.

PS.
Piper and some of the PCA guys including Keller can be challenging and powerful and might I add very scripturally sound. They are not exciting or flashy...just deliver the word.

Pat

Zane,

A few of us from my church are planning to go to Journey Church to check out their services. Redeemer is one I'd like to check out, also. I'm not familiar with Keller's preaching, so I would be interested to hear him.

I certainly was not writing anything as a knock on the church where you are attending...with which I am personally familiar. I was simply attempting to highlight a present Adventist reality (at least in many parts of North America), and I found this to be a fitting example.

I think that you've hit some key points right on the head, especially pertaining to 'life in the GNYC.' We don't engage with the surrounding culture as well as other churches. What has been traditionally preached from our pulpits is often pre-occupied with our own theological/Adventist issues...and often without regard for the issues with which the outside world is grappling. I know this is a generalization...but in our neck of the woods this often holds true.

The insensitivity that you described that can still be heard in certain places on Sabbath morning is even worse. My aunt once attended an evangelistic seminar of ours in '99, in which it was slammed home that the pope was the beast of Revelation. This was the third meeting of the series...the seats were hardly warm! She was Catholic. Needless to say...

Beyond the issues of theology, how many Adventist churches in our area have structured themselves to minister to the whole person...even though we often talk about it? We are mostly commuter churches with no members living in the community, we do Sabbath service and prayer meeting if we're lucky, and the rest of the week, the buiding is dark and empty. It means our methods need to be re-thought.

Churches like Journey, Redeemer or Saddleback take church out into their members' home communities. They are all structured through some type of small group ministry. All members are strongly encouraged to join. Training is provided, and those who participate go from being spectators to full participants in the body of Christ. If properly done, the avenue is provided for connection, building relationships, exercising one's gifts, developing new leaders, and establishing safe-havens for new people where 'everyone knows your name.'

How many of our churches actually commit themselves for the long haul to 'do church' like this? How much training is consistently provided so more of us can move to this type of model?

If this is pursued, along with joyous, quality worship, sound biblical teaching, and opportunities for service...growth will be a by-product. Numbers are not the objective, becoming a healthy, well-balanced church is. A healthy body grows.

I'll be at the SEEDS conference this coming weekend in Stamford, Ct. It's a bit out of the city, but if you're attending, it would be great to talk some more.

Frank

Both internal/institutional and external/contextual (social/demographic) factors may affect congregational growth, according to the Faith Communities Today (FACT) study.
Of interest are a couple of observations/recommendations regarding growth of faith communities in the USA:

1. "Simply having more people on your membership rolls or attending weekend worship does not in itself measure a church's health and vitality.... [Instead] congregations that have a strong commitment to social justice and with direct participation in community outreach activities are more likely to be growing than other congregations...."

2. "Such elements as a warm welcome, joyfulness, laughter, informality, and contemporary music can help many visitors to return for subsequent visits.... [However] no matter how attractive your worship time is, people are not likely to come back if the sermon, message, homily -- whatever it is called in your tradition -- does not engage them and capture their attention."

http://fact.hartsem.edu/products/FACT_Cong_Growth.pdf

Yes, of course...sound, powerful preaching must be central. Without it, we might as well be a social club.

And numbers are not the measurement, nor is the amount of activity. But healthy churches that are growing often do a good job not only of attracting people, but of moving them along into a deeper committment to Christ...from attendance, to connection, to membership, to ministry.

And there are churches that attempt to track this progress, and focus on fostering it. A good book to read on the subject is called, 'Simple Church,' by Thom Ranier and Eric Geiger. Interesting read...

Frank

Pat, the times I attended Redeemer, the only thing that makes it clear that the church is affiliated with the Presbyterianism is the church logo on the bulletin which clearly states the the name of the church as "Redeemer Presbyterian." Other than this, there have been no references to the denomination or beliefs distinctive to Calvinism (namely predestination) in the worship service or the preaching.

The focus is on gospel and making it intelligible to contemporary people.

I'm sure that this may be covered in some of the classes that they offer, but not in the worship/preaching. I think there is something Adventists could learn from this...

As for his conservatism...I once heard him say, "The early Christian church was socially conservative, but fiscally liberal." (He was making a passing reference to abortion/Roman practice of exposing unwanted infants and how Christians rejected this practice.) A friend of mine has heard him say, "The first Christians did not share their beds, but shared their resources."

Frank, glad to hear you'll be in these parts. =) My pastor and his associate will be at the conference you mention, but unfortunately, I will not. Have a great time at the conference and enjoy your visit to Journey.

If you have the time, check out the link above, and it'll give you a good idea of what Keller's teaching is like...I think it works in a setting like New York, but probably not in all settings. Would love to hear what you think.

Frank and Zane

A disturbing trend I've seen among Adventists, especially in developing countries such as in Asia and Africa, is the special importance that's given to clergy who rise in the organizational ladder. Since there's plenty of positions to go around, from local mission/conference up to the General Conference, this situation which is of an internal/institutional nature, has resulted in the loss of necessary pastoral talent that could potentially make a significant difference at the local congregational level. Our own sense of self importance, which exempts no one including clergy, stands in the way of congregational/denominational growth. It would seem, to me at least, that we measure church growth according to the number and amount of office spaces we provide their occupants in our central administrative headquarters.

Zane,

Thanks for the site. I just listened to Keller's sermon on "scripture and authority" which he says is prerequisite to a relationship with Christ.

http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Literalism_Isnt_the_Bible_historic....

When I went to RTS only elective courses were devoted to specifically "Calvinistic Predestination." It was only referenced at times in other courses...so it does not surprise me that it is not specifically dealt with in sermons.I took the course for information from Roger Nicole so that I could fairly evaluate in my mind the doctrine.

He is a good communicator...wish I lived in NY.

Pat

Joselito,

I think you are correct. Advancement is often seen as getting "out of the local parish" so that we can create programs telling others how to do it while in a sense being relieved of it..

Something else I noticed while at RTS. The attitude was that we are "first Christians" and it was felt that the "Reformed tradition" could add certain understandings for the growth of the Christian community as a whole.

How might that attitude work for us? Instead of we are the "remnant church" and you are "something else"(perhaps Babylon) or for some maybe we are not really defined as Christians but "something else"...

How about we are first part of the Christian community and we feel we have certain beliefs which help bring to maturity the body of Christ.We too are beggars of God's grace on the journey for understanding.

How might that work? Or...must we have an enemy for "our message" in order to proselyte?

Just a thought...

Yes Elder Clouzet

The technological world has changed. The sinful nature of man has not neither has the Holy character of God nor His timetable. Clouzet's implication is that we somehow have upset God's plans. We are left here to slowly slowly twist in the wind because of our hard heartedness or laziness. I think that is an egocentric view of man. The fulness of time is not in our hands but God's.

Anyone who has lost a loved one is impatient for reunion. But both they and time are in God's hands not ours. "So let us then be up and doing, learn to labor and to wait!" Tom

Pat,

I agree. Sounds like a much healthier approach than an us vs. them mentality. Rather than spending our time and energy trying to point out the error in the rest of the Christian community, this approach would put us in a position with something positive to offer from within the same community.

Joselito,

This is a situation that I feel has harmed the church in many ways and in many locales. We pull many qualified pastors gifted in pastoring out of the field, and send them 'up the ladder'into all kinds of administrative positions for which in some cases they are not gifted, qualified, or called.

This sounds more like a corporate rather than a biblical model for 'doing church.' Promotions into office and titles rather than placement by gifts, a continued division of clergy vs. layity, and a top heavy administrative entity that works top down is something that is hard to find in the NT.

The results shouldn't suprise us. Should the times be 'a changin'...?

Frank

P.S. I should have placed periods after "doing" to indicate I had not quoted the entire phrase. Tom

Zane,

I listened to Keller's sermon on the exclusivity of Christianity. I didn't find him boring or dry in the least. His approach, to me, isn't flamboyant but erudite, highly literate, and totally gospel centered.

Reached my heart as well as my mind. Thanks for the link. I intend to continue listening.

Frank

Frank,

I just listened to Keller's sermon on the "exclusivity" of Christianity and why "it alone" brings peace and that potential in the world. It was excellent...hope many can hear it!

http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Exclusivity_How_can_there_be.mp3

Pat