Print
The Inertial Church
I ran into a pastor friend a few weeks ago who I’d not seen for awhile. After greetings, “So, Loren, do you think we really can do it?” he asked. It sounds like a question out of the blue, but I knew exactly what he was asking. We pastors walk around with the burden that we have to preach the gospel—the Adventist version of it in particular—to everyone within earshot. That if we do it right, we’ll see that massive pan-cultural metanoia that prepares us to receive the desire of our hearts: Jesus coming and ending sin and suffering.
He asked the question because frankly, it’s not looking good here in the North American Division. The world has changed so much, just in my lifetime. The little church in which I grew up in rural North Dakota was thriving when I was a child. Back then, I thought that with our many churches, all the missionaries working elsewhere, our schools and hospitals, plus the Voice of Prophecy, Faith for Today, and It Is Written, it looked like we had a chance to win everyone over (or at least force the choice).
But now, not so much. Even while spiritual interest is increasing, interest in organized religion is declining. Those churches that have succeeded in a big way here in North America haven’t been Adventist churches.
So do you think we really can do it?
My first answer would be, “No, we can’t do it, but God can.” My colleague and I both believe that. Perhaps it’s been a theological miscalculation on our part to have acted as if finishing this work will happen because of our effort. If there is a reckoning of the size Scripture predicts about to take place, it will be because God sends another even more powerful rain of His Spirit on the earth.
What my friend was asking, though, had a bit more personal accountability in it: Are we Seventh-day Adventists, congregations, administrators and pastors, doing our part to keep the Seventh-day Adventist Church in play as a central actor in God’s plan?
We’re now a full-scale church. As Neil Wilson, the most CEO-like of our denominational presidents, often reminded us, we’re a major world business with enormous investments.
That sounds important, but remember that big investments are also a big anchor. The bigger you are, the slower you maneuver. And right now, most futurists say that the world is changing so tremendously fast, faster than ever in human history, that the winners will be those who are light on their feet and able to adapt quickly. Jack Welch, the iconic CEO of General Electric, once wrote, “We've long believed that when the rate of change inside an institution becomes slower than the rate of change outside, the end is in sight. The only question is when.”1
Look back over the history of religions. Rarely does an organized religious body make timely, constructive changes on its own. Denominations become so inertial that they have to be replaced, not reformed. The Roman Catholic Church couldn’t do it in the sixteenth century. (The word reformation applied to what Luther and Calvin participated in is arguably a misnomer.) In mainline Protestant churches like Episcopal, Methodist, and Presbyterian, membership has dropped steadily for fifty years, and newer, more flexible evangelical churches have taken their place.
We, too, are finding it difficult to adapt. And not just theologically.
Here’s one fairly obvious example. There can no longer be any doubt that whether we should or not, too few of us will send our teens to live in dormitories during their high school years to make boarding academies work. That’s why the majority of academies are barely holding on, and in many conferences they drain a lot of resources. Yet each one we have to close is as painful as an amputation. We will fund raise for years to prevent it, asking people to give sacrificially even as enrollment tracks steadily downward. We’ll hold long and antagonistic constituency meetings, bellicose alumni at the microphones.
When it finally ends, supportive church members are angry and disillusioned. I’ve seen instances where conference officers have lost their jobs over closing a school that had no chance of staying open anyway. (A conference president friend of mine was collared by one of his constituents at such a meeting, who shouted at him, “I don’t care if you don’t have a single student enrolled—you’re not closing our academy!”)
I’m not blaming, or even complaining. As I said, this appears to be how denominations operate. Still, if we can’t make changes to programs that are clearly failing, how will we ever plan proactively for the future? We have too many big investments to be light on our feet: buildings to do church as we’ve always done it, schools to teach pastors to pastor churches as we’ve always done it, administrative teams on four levels to make sure that we continue to do church as we’ve always done it. Our people, too, want church as we’ve always done it—at least enough of them to keep us doing it. Church as we’ve always done it isn’t bad. But will it be enough for us to play our part in a world of breathtaking cultural changes?
A few are looking beyond the present. Recently I heard Australian pastor Peter Roennfeldt talk about Fresh Expressions—a new, looser kind of worship with minimal churchiness and structure, and maximum spirituality and service. My friend Milton Adams has pioneered, Simple Church, a house church movement, in Florida. “This house church will never grow up and become a ‘real’ church,” says Milton.
Interestingly, he identifies precisely the elements that hold the denomination back as those that give a house church the chance to succeed: “Since there are no church mortgages, building funds, building maintenance, Bible workers, etc., our offerings help people in real, practical ways.” That’s more like what’s happening in places like Africa and Latin America, where Adventism is thriving.
But this is, again, less change than replacement. Should locally focused house churches become the norm (as unlikely as that appears now) some of our structure and institutions couldn’t survive. With the mindset we have right now our leaders would, I suspect, do almost anything to prevent that from happening.
So I come back to where I started: we can’t do this. Only God can. I’ll go out on a limb here and say that God will do it with us or without us. The only difference is whether we get the blessing of being part of it.
Notes and References
1. General Electric's 2000 annual report.
Loren Seibold is senior pastor of the Worthington, Ohio, Seventh-day Adventist Church. He also edits a newsletter for North American Division pastors called Best Practices for Adventist Ministry.
User login
Recent
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Pagophilus Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Fred Eastman Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Someone had to do it, and Loren, "you da man." It's risky to ask such impertinent questions, but as long as they are being ignored, attrition will not stop. Like ignoring a bad disease, ignoring it will not change things.
"Are we Seventh-day Adventists, congregations, administrators and pastors, doing our part to keep the Seventh-day Adventist Church in play as a central actor in God’s plan?"
Isn't that the wrong question to be asking? What gives the SDA church the hubris to think that it is up to the SDA church to be a central actor? Is it not possible that there may be another way; another idea; another concept; even another denomination that could serve as God's spokesperson? Is the leadership of the church so focused on what part IT can play, rather than returning again to the foundational message that first established the church: Christ and Him crucified? Where is Christ in the usual message given by the hundreds of evangelistic campaigns? Judging from the ubiquituous brochures, it still is all about Daniel and Revelation and the beasts and the anti-christ. If one doesn't first know about Christ, of what good is it to become familiar with the signs of the opposition?
With the world all around us going to Hell in a handbasket, it is no different than yelling to the drowning, "Swim for the shore." Of what benefit is to be able to point to the proof texts for SDA doctrinal positions when families are homeless, jobless, and wondering when the next free food giveaway or food stamps will be issued? "Feed my sheep" should also be literal when it is the most important need; feeding one's soul cannot be done on an empty stomach.
Loren and Elaine:
Now that we (You) have defined the question, what are we (you) going to do about it?
The first child's Gospel song I can remember is: "Brighten the Corner Where you are! I guess that is George Bush's 1000 points of light. Tom
Elaine,
I do believe we should be a central actor in God's plan. Not the only actor, for we are not the only ones who love Christ. But I don't think it hubris to hope that our church—or, rather, the people in our church—will be found to be faithful stewards when Jesus comes, having done our part to spread the Word of God.
There is still a lot of "beastly" evangelism happening, to be sure. In some respects we are victims of our history. The Adventist church never set out to redo basic Christianity, but to point out what other churches were missing—namely the Sabbath and the 2nd coming of Christ, within in a prophetic matrix. For a long time, that worked, because most people were Christians, and we could just tell them the new stuff. Now that this continent is considerably less Christian than it was, we're still doing the same thing, probably with less effect. (Though it would be erroneous to say that public evangelism doesn't work at all. I always challenge those who say that to tell me what they're doing. At least the evangelists are doing something.)
Christ isn't missing from all evangelism, and surely not from all of our churches. There are many faithful Christians among us, for whom "Christ and Him crucified" is the center of faith. There are also some who are trying new, more Christ-centered evangelistic programs, that make me hopeful. I see many more churches trying to reach out to their communities to lend a helping hand in tangible ways. So while we have our deficiencies, I want to give credit where it is due. We have some great people, and great pastors, and marvelous churches.
Loren
Loren: At the risk of appearing hubristic let me call your attention to an article I wrote on this website a year or so ago, titled: What Peter Drucker Can Teach Us About the Church.
In it I point out what I think is an important and useful observation of Drucker's. That is, that a church is (using the term descriptively now, not pejoratively) a bureaucratic organization. It does not face the same sort of 'market test' as a typical for-profit business. It is funded differently and these differences have significant implications when it comes to the issue of adaptability.
As another example of an alternate structure for "church" I would mention Mission Catalyst that Ron Gladden founded a few years ago.
Hmmm - big companies vary a lot in how well they cope with change.
But one study that was quoted a lot while Digital Equipment Corporation was going down the tubes basically came down to "companies fail doing exactly what made them successful".
Partially, it is a question of deciding what the corporate goal is. In the case of SDA'ism is it
> finding the truth
> maximal number of converts
> pleasant social life for current members
Of course, what really happens is a mixture that is almost beyond the control of anyone
/Bevin
Two things are important here:
(1) the goal, as Bevin has pointed out
and
(2) the actions we take to accomplish that goal.
Our presumption has always been that our goal, whatever it is, is God-endorsed-and given. Loren's article describes a couple of possible goals:
(a) "to preach the gospel—the Adventist version of it in particular—to everyone within earshot."
(b) "to win everyone over (or at least force the choice)."
I didn't end the article sure of whether his sense of the goal had changed, even though his view of the odds clearly has.
It seems reasonable to me that our actions and methods will flow from whatever goal we set in front of ourselves.
And in talking with my peers, most of them under 45yo, majority of them under 30yo, and some under 25yo, it is not clear to me that my peers share either goals (a) or (b).
Should locally focused house churches become the norm (as unlikely as that appears now) some of our structure and institutions couldn’t survive. With the mindset we have right now our leaders would, I suspect, do almost anything to prevent that from happening.
**************************************************************
This is quite intriguing. What can be lighter on its feet than a local house church? Or a movement based on such that meets in living rooms, church basements, libraries, hospital board rooms, etc? Sounds a little like the 12 step movement. Also sounds like how the NT church operated. At least that is the picture I get as I read Acts and some of the letters.
We're looking at a way of operating that would be free of so many encumbrances. Very minimal overhead, no property management concerns, no mortgages, no insurance concerns, no multi-layered, top-down business model hierarchy that often ends up making decisions to justify and perpetuate itself...just a simple focus on connecting people with Jesus by connecting people with people. Just a simple focus on equipping and training group members in light of their own unique giftedness and callings to go and replicate the group fellowship elsewhere...IOW a simple focus on making disciples, period.
This is where the power was in the early church. The NT repeatedly says that they taught, fellowshipped, and broke bread from house to house. These were mostly small, intimate gatherings where Jesus was worshipped, and believers could share their experience, strength and hope...to borrow a phrase. In such settings, evangelism and growth happened organically and continually, rather than through isolated, centrally sponsored, tent meetings or arena events.
On the one hand, in light of the general suspicion that is growing in our culture towards organized religion and denominationalism, such a movement (one that brings the Jesus experience into the everyday environment of people without all the religious trappings) seems almost imperative. On the other hand, I think you're right, Loren; such a movement, if pursued to its logical extent, would render so much of our organizational machinery superfluous. And I agree, our leadership will never back anything under the auspices of the denomination that would threaten denominational structures as they are now constituted.
The irony is that without such radical change, we could likely end up finding ourselves out of exsistence anyway...at least in places like North America.
Thanks...
Frank
I see one problem with house churches - they are congregational in nature and Adventist hierarchical structure could never live with that - not enough control. But I find the house church idea very attractive.
The amazing thing is that solid 12 step groups, organized around the steps and traditions, are usually not out in left field doing something that is anti-program. They are remarkably similar wherever one goes, without a central controlling hierarchy.
That doesn't mean that you don't run into bad, poorly run meetings. You do, just like one can find plenty of bad, poorly run Adventist churches and worship services. Which tells me that a strong, central hierarchal leadership does little to insure quality control, or orthodoxy for that matter.
What drives addicts and groups to adhere to the steps and traditions is the desire of the members to get and stay clean, not a central adminstrative overseer. Shouldn't this be what drives the church to remain true to Christ and his word...the desire to get and stay well?
Then again, so much of what we as the church do often doesn't carry the life and death urgency that propels those suffering from addiction. A shared sense of absolute need, gleamingingly articulated hope, and shared fellowship in such, can do more to keep a more loosely structured movement together and growing than all the organizational machinery in the world could ever hope to.
Thanks...
Frank
Hopefully, we will soon realize that our problem is that what we are looking forward to is not going to happen. Adventism, like much of Christianity, has beep preaching division while God's message is unity. We are hoping that God will agree with us that the only way to succeed is to kill as many people as possible. It ain't gonna happen.
One Race, Indivisible.
One Race, Indivisible.
Frank,
Just to clarify that paragraph: When I spoke of our leaders doing anything to prevent that from happening, I was referring to the latter part of the sentence—our structure and our institutions not surviving—not to starting house churches. I don't think anyone would object to house churches, but it has proven to be very hard to reduce our bureaucratic structure or, as I noted about academies, to shutter unneeded institutions. As Carrol Grady observed, we have a tradition of centralization, and don't like congregationalism. She may also be right that house churches have the potential to become dangerously independent. Right now Milton's house churches are very supportive of the institutional role of the church, but who knows where that kind of independence might lead?
Loren
Seventh-day Adventism started as a house chuch! Tom
A couple of things here, Loren wrote:
--
Our people, too, want church as we’ve always done it—at least enough of them to keep us doing it. Church as we’ve always done it isn’t bad. But will it be enough for us to play our part in a world of breathtaking cultural changes?
--
What the church has always done can in fact be a bad thing. Specifically the way the church manipulated the Bible to make it appear that God in order to forgive had to punish someone. Which was the subject of my most recent blog article. http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/06/ty-gibsons-sermon-on-penal-atonement...
Of course our memories are more recent so when we say what the church has always done really only goes back a couple hundred years, but in an information filled world it is critical that what we offer presents a real God who really deserves to be worshiped and it be presented in a way that does not read into the Bible things that would never be seen there if one were not reading a particular thought into them.
The second issue is house churches which I thought about a lot some 15 years ago. But the thing we forget about churches is they are very largely social organizations. A house church can fill all the social needs of the adults but generally very little social needs of the children. Especially because children socially stratify by ages. I have seen no way around this in the house church movement.
One thing about the time we are living in is that it really is a time of change for the Western Christian world. Which can be challenging or frustrating. Such changes in particular point out the need for the social support network that a church is or should be. So we are at this ledge where theology and social characteristics merge and we have to decide where to go from here. To go on or to go back. Problem is that we are in a 4 dimensional world where going back really isn't an option because even if we get back to that place time will have moved on so we always have to improvise. Sadly bureaucratic organizations are the worst at improvising.
Ron
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
Church House, why not? It's about time!
We need to seriously think about what we have been told and doing for the past 150 years or so.
"We’re a major world business with enormous investments" does not refer to soul winning. It means exactly what Neal C. Wilson said, a "world business". And the essence of a business is to make profit! In the year 2000, the global wealth of the organization exceeded in value $20 billion, with $6 billion in health care institutions and about another $6 billion in church properties... If Adventism were a country, its global income, which was $1.7 billion in 2001, would place it 152 out of 208 in the World Bank rankings of world economies (Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-Day Adventism and the American Dream; Bull & Lockhart, 2007).
By stating: “And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel" (Ex.19: 6), Moses laid the foundation of the Temple Priesthood. Peter, however, established the "House Priesthood" when he said: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light"(1 Pet.2: 9). Though quoting Moses, he uses the verse homiletically. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews clearly supports Peter’s claim when s/he says: “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb.10: 19-22, NIV).
The believer waives his/her right to serve God according to his/her conscience the moment s/he accepts to be part of an organized church. If the 'word' set me free (Jn.8: 32), what need do I have to submit to men? I am saved for believing in Jesus as the promised Messiah (Acts 2: 38), not for having a membership in a specific denomination, as long as I keep God’s commands and the faith of Jesus (Rev.14: 12), which is the “firm conviction" that Yeshua (Jesus) is the God of Israel, Yahweh! (Is.9: 6; 43: 10; Mal.3: 1-2; Mt.1: 21; Jn.14: 8-9; Rev.1: 8). Church House is God ordained! What is written in the Law? How readest thou? (Lk.10: 26)
Phil, at this stage, I'm less interested in discussing where church should be, and more interested in considering who and what church is.
What is it?
What is the nature of it?
What is the function of it?
If one evaluates it, on what basis?
When we have identified the thing, and locked down its purpose, then it may be helpful to talk about limits and locations.
Ron,
I didn't mean to say that the church "as we've always done it" is invariably good, and I'm sorry if it sounded that way. We do show flaws in how we live out the good news. But many people are happy with typical church activities, and done well, a happy social church, with kind people helping one another, isn't an inherently bad thing. That doesn't mean it can survive cultural change, though.
Your comment about house churches not meeting the needs of children is an interesting one. When I was a pastor of a small church, I was always frustrated that at some point, the teens would all gravitate to the biggest church in the area, and their parents would follow. Yet I understood why. Kids want to be together.
If a house church is just a tinier cell of what we do at regular church, you're correct that it won't please the young. If it is something more dynamic, with lots of service activity and interaction between house churches (as Milton Adams pictures it) I think it might offer even more to Christian young people than the youth-pastor-led activities of the bigger churches.
I remember reading years ago (wish I could find it again) that children who grow up in a small church where they are relied upon to help out and participate, teach, give special music, etc.—in short, where they're part of what's going on, not just spectators—have a better rate of remaining in the church than those who don't.
By the way, I hope others have gone back to read Rich Hannon's excellent piece that he references above, about service institutions vs. profit-driven institutions. It sheds a lot of light on the difference between how churches operate vs. businesses.
Loren
Is there any evidence that being "in the church" from cradle to grave provides the best outcomes?
After preaching and teaching in parks for several years, I have seen a house church come together over the last few months. Attendance varies from a few to a dozen or more. I think of it as a "church," although I refer people to a real church for sacraments such as baptism and communion.
The idea of taking money from people for spiritual services is revolting to me. As my Hebrew tutor used to tell me, "To teach means to learn intensively." Perhaps I should be paying them for the privilege of sharing the life changing news about Jesus Christ with them?
I would not want Adventism to get anywhere near these people, who are learning of Jesus from the Bible.
It is a great tragedy that some of the wackiest and meanest people I have met describe themselves as Christians. Hong Xiuquan, the leader of the Taiping Rebellion was a misguided legalist who was set on his course, in part, by the Bible.
Some historians consider the Taiping Rebellion the bloodiest civil war in history. There was a definite religious and "Christian" element to it.
I'm not sure where it will all end, but it's quite an interesting journey.
Trevor:
I suppose it would depend upon what you mean by "best outcomes". I suspect some would define that differently. My experience among pastors has made me think that those who are adult converts often are more evangelistic than those who grew up in the church, while those who spent their lives in the church are more conscious of pastoral concerns. But that's a huge generalization.
To me, the best outcome would be the most people knowing Christ and accepting salvation.
Hansen:
I'll be interested to hear your experiences with your house church. I'm quite intrigued by this idea, for the very reason you mention, and that Milton Adams says, above: that it really does reduce the financial footprint, such that we could do effective Christian ministry without so much church machinery (of which I'm a part!)
Loren
Here is one of my ideas for a way smaller churches could function, it would work for house churches also. The only thing is it would require organization from above, i.e. conference to do this in a city because it goes against our tradition. For example our city has 2 churches and a church plant in it. Two of those churches own their own good sized church. the church plant rents. Instead of having large churches which honestly don't allow for much other uses and largely sit unused 8o% of the time. build one large multipurpose facility, Then the smaller churches would either operate from houses or rent local smaller churches which like Adventists churches aren't used 80% of the time. Since they generally don't use them on sunday it works well for both groups. Any time your small/house church needs to meet for other activities on other days of the week they can use the multipurpose facility (which could also operate as a church on Saturday or could act as the magnet church for youth to college age. Ideally the multifunction building would also act as the local SDA school.
Now this does not really fully solve the children and youth in a small or house church but it would help as you could still get all the churches together for youth and games etc which is what they kids want anyway. If they had those things available they might not care as much if they did not see all that many children or youth at a Sabbath service. At least until they start dating and then...
Problem is we never think outside of the box. This idea is far more similar to the Mormon church which if you notice runs full time all day sunday as people from different areas of town hold their meetings throughout the day. But we have the huge advantage of being able to rent something on Saturday so we should never even need the fancy church and pews churches.
But then I doubt the SDA church will ever try anything like that.
Ron
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
Ron,
That's an interesting idea. I like the idea of a gathering place for smaller church cells. I think it's been tried in some evangelical groups.
I think a lot of us are frustrated by the minimal use our church structures get. If you think about it, the idea of having a dedicated church building, equipped only for the function of sacred worship, is much closer to the Catholic idea of sacred space than what you'd find with Jesus or the early Christian church!
You might enjoy the Innovation Conference we have here in Ohio. Stirs up some creative ideas.
Loren
Consumer Christianity and consumer Adventism ask, "How can the church bless me and care for my needs and preferences?" Missional Adventism asks, "How can our presence bless others and God's kingdom?" The form our gatherings (churches) take depends on which question we are primarily attempting to answer. Fresh Expression churches, house churches, coffee-house churches, churches meeting at Barnes & Nobles or Starbucks -- all (including our models of the "received church") have the potential of flourishing if their prime DNA is that of blessing others.
If, as Loren suggests, only "God can do it," perhaps the ways in which He does it will reflect the variety, diversity, and creativity we see in the universe. Perhaps the issue we need to be discussing is not which model or models would likely be most effective and enduring, but rather how many expressions of church we will permit the Holy Spirit to conceive and birth among us and through us.
What Loren has initiated is a very timely conversation -- one that merits wider engagement and participation. As he also stated in one of his posts, this is a conversation that will occur at the upcoming National Conference on Innovation.
The church I attend has rented one of the local Lutheran churches for a number of years. They have excellent facilities: many classrooms, large fellowship hall. The drawback: there is not sufficient parking space.
We have joined forces several times to have Thanksgiving and Christmas programs, followed by dinner together which was a distinct pleasure to get acquainted with the members of both churches.
Now we have purchased another church which will be renovated and expect to have the first service by Thanksgiving.
Something about having two churches: one meeting on Saturday and the other on Sunday, seems to be a much more efficient use of the building. It has always seemed very questionable for the conference to hold ownership of the church properties; yet the members have, in essence, paid for something they do not truly own; it can default to the conference if the members elect to split from the denomination and have their own organization. This is a case in another denomination in the town where I live when the church split over the ordination of women and gay clergy.
Elaine,
If they'd add a mosque gathering for prayers on Friday, you'd be even more efficient!
:-)
Loren
House Churches may be a solution in some small or remote communities. Other than that, it smells of fragmentation--like in the time of the Judges: "Every man did what was right in his own eyes!"
The South is replete with "Self-Supporting Institutions."
I have visited several that in the short period of my visit seemed like ideal communities of faith. Others, I have received broadsides that smelled like brimstone and sulfur.
It seemed that one issue was dominate: Control, not only of doctrine but of very mind control. Just a step or two away from Waco.
There is some interest in creating a house church in Augusta. In the 43 years, I have been in Augusta, Augusta has had two pastors worthy of the name: Leading a flock to the Master. All others have been shopkeepers of various abilities.
The amazing thing is that all have had one or more years of post-graduate study at Andrews. Yet theologically they seem as sleep-walkers. In such situations, I can't see how holding services in a home would help; other than establishing one's own brand.
Tom
Tom,
The type of "self-Supporting institutions" to which you refer are questionable, and you are probably right that they are more about control, having attended one myself many years ago and am familiar with several others.
The "inbreeding" that occurs in Adventism is one of the greatest problems, I believe, in our ministerial graduates. They are ejected every year full of all of Adventism and their ability in homiletics, but have had little or no day-to-day experience with those of other persuasions. This is detrimental, I feel, to their future vocation in dealing with people of many and varied beliefs.
There is such fear of an SDA "on-track" theology student from studying at other seminaries that is borders on paranoia. When will the church become open to further and better communiation with other Christian professors? Having attended a Mennonite seminary for several courses, I can attest to the fact that they are very fundamental in their beliefs, but without the isolation of Adventist seminaries.
Someone on a thread here spoke of SDAs being separated much like the Jews during Christ's time and it seems that the same wall is seen in Adventism as in those times. Only by freely associating in studies and working through mutual problems in all churches will
SDA theology students become thoroughy equipped to fulfill their roles.
"House Churches may be a solution in some small or remote communities. Other than that, it smells of fragmentation--like in the time of the Judges: "Every man did what was right in his own eyes!" "
I basically agree with Tom's point here. Fragmented, looser, smaller, more personal, can also translate into more personality-centered, idiosyncratic, confusion.
Also, as someone who's been attending an Episcopal church for the past two years, the looser, smaller, perhaps more house-centered approach to church minimizes the spiritual nurturing that derives from larger corporate worship, including, yes, ceremonial rituals, common prayers and scriptural readings, and a basic liturgy.
I've been pretty amazed to discover how much I enjoy this aspect of religion.
Here's a clip of John Micklethwait talking about the sociology and politics of house churches in China. He also (elsewhere) makes the comparison to the force of the "regime" in first century Roman empire, that ensured gatherings were limited in size.
I'm not touting his book, but in last night's appearance on TV (Australia) he sounded like a disciple of Samuel Huntington (not a bad thing IMO).
A question for church admins in the West. Suppose you have a congregation of one thousand. The main focus of the endeavour is around Sabbath morning meetings (and the associated schools, of course). The music is perceived to be a major drawcard, but the music director is moving on. How far and wide would you search for a replacement director and how much would you allow for a recruitment budget?
I think it's a hard lesson for Adventists and Christians to learn that "church" comes out of kingdom and not kingdom out of "church." It's not about the organization, the structure, the programs, ministries, hospitals, schools, investments, etc. They are only there to serve kingdom not to be served. Also, learning what "church" really means and really is, is another thing the Holy Spirit needs to teach us. Until we are free from corporate church and churchiness and church as a program, building or place to go or thing to have vs. a warm body, a living temple, we cannot be set free to let the Spirit lead us into territory that is strange and new to us. Father in Heaven, I pray that you will give us the boldness to do an Abraham if that is what you are calling us to do for your kingdom to be established in our hearts and in this earth. Amen.
There is no evidence that what we have made of the church is what Jesus intended when He said "Upon this rock I will build my church." There is nothing religious about the church. Church means people who are called out of society to perform a particular task, whether it is to spread the good news that we are one or to entertain us with sports.
One Race, Indivisible.
One Race, Indivisible.
Institutional and Pastoral dependency are both idolatry.
When will we be United and Free.
May God be our God so we can bring glory to His name by bearing MUCH FRUIT!
John 15:8
By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.
May you all be filled to overflowing with the transforming power of His Holy Spirit.
Prayerfully search deep my friends He will open our eyes.
The topic of children in house church caught my attention. I have been teaching the children in our house church for just over a year. Some observations:
1)Children often outnumber adults on a given Sabbath. Some come even without a parent/guardian. They seem to have an innate sense that this is the way church should be done. When asked why, they will usually mention "no pews," eating together, and being with friends.
2)Children also want to grow spiritually. They get excited over receiving their first Bible. Five have been baptized since last summer. Another is preparing. Each has completed a set of children's Bible studies. I've had to turn Sabbath School into an ongoing baptismal class.
3)Children are naturally evangelistic. For example, the five who've been recently baptized have collectively invited at least 13 people who've accepted their invitation to attend one of the house church services or baptisms. And they've just as sincerely extended many other invitations that have not yet been accepted. Perhaps we ask the wrong question when we ask what we can/should do for the children; perhaps we could ask to see what God can do through them. I suspect it is much.
4)Less factual is my conclusion that house church shows children that Christianity is not too pretty to use. It might get stepped on, untied, smudged, and spilled upon--but they can use it.
Brenda
Brenda, thanks for that assessment! Especially the last point, about Christianity isn't too pretty to be used! I'm going to use your comment in the next Best Practices.
Loren
Glen, As someone who also appreciates liturgical worship I have often wished there were religious services for 7th day believers in a catholic or episcopal format.
I don't think it's a case of either/or but why not both/and.
Even "house churches" should worship corperately in the "cathedral" on occasion. Were not Jews required to celebrate three times a year in Jerusalem?
I agree with Glenn about the important aspects of communal worship that often passed over in house/small group settings (although, I suppose, they don't need to).
And I also share Donna's wish. That's the kind of innovative worship Adventism needs, one that draws on the wisdom and riches found in the Christian tradition, and is in continuity with it, broadly speaking.
Donna
The liturgical service is beautiful. It also can become as rote as a spinning can. The great hymns of the Church and a well prepared and well deliver homily, A Paul Heubach Sermon is what we all need. Neither passion nor style can ace preparation and sincerity of committment. Tom
"House Churches may be a solution in some small or remote communities. Other than that, it smells of fragmentation--like in the time of the Judges: "Every man did what was right in his own eyes!" "
I basically agree with Tom's point here. Fragmented, looser, smaller, more personal, can also translate into more personality-centered, idiosyncratic, confusion.
*************************************************************
While I see the potential of this happening, consider the alternative... a tightly run, centralized church that translates into instituionalism and bureauacracy, and becomes a business driven model more concerned with finances, programs, and policies, than it is with people. Sounds like the state of many denominations throughout the world. Maybe this helps explain why so many today are turned off to organized religion, and that the fastest growing segment within Christianity is the house church movement.
I am not advocating house church at the expense of centralized corporate worship. Both experiences can serve as complements to one another. But before we write off the home church movement as simply some sort of divisive fad, just check the roots of it...in the NT. The church was a house to house phenomenon. They worshipped in homes; they broke the bread of communion in each others homes; and, they fellowshipped and shared in their homes on a continual basis...seemingly more than just one or two days per week.
And yes, judging from Paul's letters to the churches like those in Corinth, things were less tightly controlled...and did indeed get more messy at times. But one also sees the Spirit having more free reign in those churches, maybe because of the intimacy, transparency and spontaneity that is natural to more intimate worship gatherings, as opposed to the highly programmtic liturgy that is more a vestige of Middle Age Christendom.
This is a vestige that finds its roots in the top down relationship and division of clergy and laity, a division that has disempowered the body of Christ and its gifted members for ages. It flies in the face of the priesthood of all believers...something that a more lateral organization based on smaller groups of gathering believers could possibly help restore.
Thanks for considering my two pennies...
Frank
Additonally...
This sounds like an issue that we, in free countries have a much tougher time with than those who live under regimes that leave believers no choice but to meet privately in each others homes for fellowship and worship. But it seems that centralized control and orthodoxy aren't needed nearly as much when people are simply hanging onto Christ for dear life.
It also is curious that the fastest growing spiritual movement of the past century...the 12 step program...also has had relatively little problem with their equivalent of a small group organization. Their is no centralized control dictating policy and procedure from the top down. The steps and the traditions are what bring consistency from group to group...not that you won't find poorly run groups, as one can also find poorly run churches. But deviation from the norm is not such an issue when many recovering addicts are simply showing up and hanging on to their Higher Power for dear life.
It seems that the debates in which we sometimes engage are indicators that we, who live comfortable lives and in comfortable homes, and attend comfortable centers of worship, often lose touch in our own lives with such stark realities. Me included.
Thanks...
Frank
Add your comment