Loren

Thanks for this "good news!" ): Maybe a bunch of these very small churches should be shut down in favor of larger and healthier ones. In the San Diego Area, two or three churches combined to make one exceedingly vibrant congregation with enough resources to do things right. Its a joy to visit!

Dave

The suggestions made years ago in the SDA institution favored small churches, and "planting" churches. This, inevitably led to conditions seen in the city where I live. With a metropolitan population of half a million, there are far too many churches, all within easy driving distances. Some are so small they began as "companies" and had the services of a pastor perhaps once a month, not an enticing picture for inviting friends.

The larger mega-churches of other denominations, including Adventism, grow largely because of the pastor. Several years ago, a new pastor (non-SDA) in my community, knocked on my door and handed me a pamphlet outlining the mission of his church and invited me to attend. This worked for Rick Warren who had to start his own church. Do Adventist pastors do this? Or, do they rely on the evangelistic prophecy seminars for new converts?

Some of the small SDA churches barely survive, and are composed mostly of aging members--not exactly a recipe for growth.

There are many reasons that could be given for the dying churches in NAD. However, if one looks closely at the preaching bringing in new members, it focuses on the church's unique "Truth" that only it has; that accepting the Sabbath will separate them from former friends and even family, but that is the price that must be paid for belonging to a church that is the remnant and all the others are Babylon. This message leads to non-members as being "outsiders" that possibly may pollute them and thus they should send their children to only SDA schools and avoid "living in the worldly atmosphere" of non-SDAs.

There should be no wonder why these small churches no longer bring in new converts. With such an atmosphere, who would choose to join?

One of the problems may be what has been argued as on Spectrum as justification for our rigid Sabbath observance, it is a gift and for sake of community.

What if you open up a gift and it is ugly?

What if you are associated with a community for which you are embarrassed by their "beliefs" and "actions"?

What is the result?

What if the response when you try to change these "misunderstandings" is, go elsewhere if you don't like it? [This was close to what was said to me at the last SDA church I attended, and it wasn't about the Sabbath, but justice in the way they were organized.]When asked why the Church Handbook wasn't followed, they said they don't follow it here.

I once sang in a mega-church choir, and every Sunday we had celebrity guests and soloists. One Sunday, after a celebrity soloist got a standing ovation, the pompous and supercilious preacher exclaimed, 'try doing that in your little local church!' A staffer sitting next to me whispered, 'Oooooooh!' Needless to say, that put-down did not appear on their up-beat TV 'show'. I called it Celebrity Churchianity.

The very small churches probably don't need pastors. The members can duke it out in someone's living room, rented hall, or Sunday church. There probably needs to be a critical mass(a Catholic problem!) of people to properly 'do church'...if church really needs to be done. We don't have to have fast-food. We can stay home and cook. We don't have to have church to commune with God. We can stay home and do that too. We shouldn't just 'play church'.

Close a lot of the very small churches and build solid programs at well designed and built churches of at least 200 members(on the books). But we don't need mega-churches which worship Fame, Fortune, and Power more than Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And which cater to 'felt needs'.

A highly 'theologized' church like the SDA church, which is whole-Bible, Ellen White, eschatalogical, behavior-related soteriology, evangelist based...creates a lot of strong emotions, fear, convictions, and conflicts. In a small church, there is no place to hide. A liberal, non-invasive, liturgical church is much more relaxed. Some might say too relaxed. You do the ritual and go home, or wherever.

To live in heaven with the saints...oh that will be glory. To live on earth among the saints...well that's another story. There is no good answer to religious and church problems. We just have to do the best we can, and not worry too much about it.

It was June 1944 just weeks before D-day, The Indianpolis, Ind Church, the Conference Church, held an evagelistic Series.
A young couple were converted and baptized. The next weekend they went to his mother home. The first morning, mother, a good Baptist fixed a special breakfast for her son and family. Of course, it included bacon. The newly baptized young couple thought for a few moments and then ate the bacon.

The next Friday night at Prayer Meeting, in which a testimonial service was de rigor and in which the testimonial usually degrated into a "confessinal", the young man got up and told the story of the bacon. 1. It smelled so good after going "cold turket on pork for three weeks. 2. Embarrassing his mother, So they ate, just one piece. Almost the entire congregation gasped audiable. I whispered to the G.I. sitting next you me--we were attending from near by Harrison General Hospital where we were being trained to be medics etc.--"I bet that eating that slice of bacon was the least sin committed by the gasppers that entire week!" I pondered how long before, the young couple decided to find a more hospitalble church environment. Surprise, they did. They moved to Berrien Springs and he entered the Ministry. He was just completing when I returned from the South Pacific. I lost track after that. My point is we all tend to see the "sins" of other as worse than our own and thus, appear and are "judgmental" The size of the church doesn't matter. It seems that further from academic circles it intensifies and maybe nearer "headquarters" also.

There can be no solid program without a solid understanding of the Gospel---Comfort one anyother with these words. Words of comfort from Christ Himself---"Come unto Me---"

The church is for healing, education, fellowship and service--not crtical analysis of lifestyle aberrations. Education rightly understood and practiced should grow a church not wittle it down.

I recall early in the Augusta Church a young black couple entered the lobby to be met by a deacon who explained that the Black church was six block down and two block over and they would be "much happier there!". Now the Augusta Church is color blind, jewlery blind, musically deaf, and spiritually satisfied. At least fellowship and the school are the glue that hold them together. Tom

Here are a couple more related issues:

1. What would you say to the person who joined their children in Saturday morning soccer teams instead of taking them to Sabbath School? Grounds? The soccer was better for their spiritual development.

2. I once spoke with a Conference President about why so many Seventh-day Adventists are "nutcases". If you visit a Shopping Mall and stay there a while you will see a percentage of "nutcases". If you visit an SDA church on Sabbath morning, you will see a much higher percentage.

I'm not saying Jesus doesn't love nutcases. Quite the opposite. It is just that nutcases have a lot of difficulty acting in ways that are appropriate, which makes them a liability in any community, even in the community of the church.

One solution for smaller churches. Ordain Female pastors.

Maccafacta

You might find this interesting. A traveling salesman had a flat tire in front of a fenced and gates mental hospital.

He stopped his car, got out the jack, took off the hub cap, loosened the nuts, raised the wheel off the pavement, and carefully placed the nuts in the up turned hub cap. He got out the spare, put it on, just as a car whizzed by hitting the hub cap and scattering the nuts all over the ditch. The man swore and said: "Now what am I going to do?" When a voice inside the fence said, take off the three other hub caps, take one nut from each wheel and put them on the wheel without nuts. The saleman said, "its brillant!" "How in the world did you think of that?" To which the voice replied: "I'm crazy not stupid!".

There is a hymn in the old SDA Hymnal that reads: "Look for the way marks the great prophetic way marks-----If one would to actually do that and test each one against history. and then mtach them with those who believe them---you will have your nut cases. SDA evangelism power point casting nets are designed to troll in nut cases.

To be sure, some of the brightest minds, and honest souls are brought in also==a few stay, many leave. The mix is about Mall size I would say. My point is the "proof text" method of recruitment is designed for those not adept at problem solving.

The most triumphalistic pastor in Augusta, Ga for years was the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Augusta. Now they have a new pastor and the same congregation is a Praise Church, If you have a touch of joint pain, I advise you not to attend. The pastor of the First Baptist Church was a builder. He built a campus second to none in NorthWest Georgia. His "I'll do it my way" filled the pews of at least
7 other Baptist churches in the area and that pastor is now selling securities and the church parking lot is less than half full. It is used as a music hall at least six times a year. Also as an ecumenical meeting place for all the local pastors and their leadership.

I suggest an excellent book:" don't think of an elephant" by George Lakoff Chelsea Green Publishing White River Junction, Vermont 2004. Tom

I just cannot accept that we should just do the best we can, as has been suggested, because there's no good answer to church problems. That's not the church I read about in Acts. Nor will it help us fufill the mandate that I believe we are to carry out as the Body of Christ. "We're doing the best we can," has often become a euphemism for continuing a status-quo that is just not working.

The leadership of my local church has had to take a good look in the mirror and start asking some real hard questions about why we're in the state that is described in this piece. Why are we a graying congregation? Why are we not relevant to our community? Why are we not attracting new members?

These questions have left us with an option. We could blame the 'difficulty' of our message; we could attribute the problem to the affluence of Westchester County and Lower Connecticut; we could say that it's a sign of the times; or we could begin to admit that a good portion of the problem resides with us... that we need to take ownership.

And this acknowledgement has caused us to go searching for solutions. One of the solutions we've seen is in Acts 2. The church described there is healthy and well-balanced. There is the centrality of the gospel and gospel preaching, there is continual praise and worship, there is strong teaching, there is ministry within the church and also to the surrounding community, there is the constant undergirding of prayer, etc. It is a church firing on all cylinders.

As a small congregation we realized that we couldn't get all the cylinders firing at once. But we realized that we had to begin somewhere. We've had to acknowledge our strengths and weaknesses, and begin to build on the former while addressing the latter. We've had to make some decisions that are controversial, that may cause us to lose some long standing members in the short run, but that we feel will benefit the church in the long run. We have met resistence from a few because we have "dared" to look at non-Adventist church successes, churches that are healthy, vibrant, growing, and making a difference in their communities, and are seeking to learn from them.

We realize that this is a work in progress. That there are no quick fixes or magic bullets that will bring a sudden remedy to our situation. Kind of like, "if you walked ten miles into the woods, you need to walk ten miles to get out."

Also, very importantly, we have been given a very progressive full time pastor to oversee this process. A process that we would like to see leading us to eventually plant a new church, or churches. The idea is that healthy bodies/organisms grow and multiply. While his and our goal is to get the church to a healthy self-sufficiency,(not centered around any one human leader) we are just hoping that our conference doesn't split up his ministry too soon because they are not seeing fast enough results...an Adventist addiction.

The piece above stated, "Some congregations are just trying to survive, and haven’t the energy to adapt and regenerate." This can be true of churches of any size or ilk. I just pray that we can continue to move and stay out of survival mode. If not, we won't survive.

Thanks...

Frank

Upon further reflection, I would say that our greatest church problem is exactly theological, in the strictest sense of the word. Any ecclesiological problem must find its roots in a faulty lived out ecclesiology, thus a faulty practical theology.

Maybe our theological problem is that we view theology as disembodied doctrine, rather than day to day fleshed out biblical spirituality.

Thanks...

Frank

Again. Small churches like small people grow and thrive with nurturing. Only healthy sheep reproduce.

Ordain Women! Assign them to these churches. Can't hurt.

Amen, Donna. What a great idea. The first evangelist Jesus sent out was a woman. She changed the entire town. "Come see this Man," she said, focusing on The One. Ahhhh. What if churches focused on The Saviour?

Hey Frank,

On your last comment:

"Upon further reflection, I would say that our greatest church problem is exactly theological, in the strictest sense of the word."

Amen.

Although I agree with Pastor Loren's comments, IMO, faulty practice ultimately stems from faulty theology. (That's the nerd in me talking.)

In the Adventist church we have conference leaders that are for the most part pragmatists (keep the tithe coming in and the conference "unified"), some pastors, theologians, and academics that are "progressive", and many congregations and laity that are confused or "historic" in their orientation. (Of course I'm speaking very generally here.)

Not a good recipe, in my book, for systematic heath and growth. =(

How about the first people to nurture the first church leaders' in their faltering faith after Jesus rose? It was a group of women who were the first to give men the good news!

Let's look at mobilizing all in their gifts for the good of the whole...regardless of gender, race, status, etc.

Thanks...

Frank

Zane,

That's why I appreciate an article like this. There won't be any health and growth until we start looking specifically at where and how we are unhealthy, and where and how we need to grow. A piece like this can help stimulate us to move in this direction and away from the contant catch all castigation of the "sheep" for being Laodicean.

Thanks...

Frank

I cannot agree with you more, Donna! Just this past week I worshipped with a small (consisting of about a hundred, more or less, Sabbath morning attendees) AND vibrant, All Nations Adventist congregation that's pastored by a woman. She was commissioned in the church where I used to be a member. IMO, she made a difference where she was and is making a big difference where she is presently. It so happened they were having a kind of summer long "campmeeting"; thus, she had invited a visiting preacher, who wasn't exactly a guest since she, the latter, I soon learned, had interned recently in this same home church of hers. As I listened to this young intern's spirited, down-to-earth presentation, drawing lessons from features of an Eastern custom we may not have noticed in connection with the wedding Jesus attended in Cana, I kept wondering how long she may have to wait for her to receive a call from the conference. In my honest opinion, she deserves a place alongside other fulltime pastors, male or female, even in a small congregation like this one!

I'd experienced pastoring a district of about a dozen congregations, consisting of several very small (15 to 30 church plants) and small (less than a 100 to 200 morning worshippers). Also one that was medium size, of about 500 Sabbath morning attendees, in a city. Not in this country, of course. Fact of the matter is a couple of women schoolmates of mine had graduated together with me and had also solo pastored districts of their own. How long do still they have to wait for them to be ordained? Well, what can I say?

Let me share a finding of a National congregational study at Hartford:

"Size and resource distributions are quite skewed. Although most congregations are small, most people are in congregations that are large. The median Congregation has only 75 regular participants (and an annual budget of only $55,000), but the median person is in a congregation with 400 regular participants (and an annual budget of about $210,000). From another angle, only 10% of American congregations have more than 350 regular participants, but those congregations contain almost half of the religious service attenders in the country. Size and resources influence almost every aspect of congregational life, and these findings make clear that the typical congregation's situation is not at all equivalent to the congregational situation of the typical churchgoer."

- Mark Chaves, The National Congregations Study: Background, Methods and Selected Results.

http://www.hartfordinstitute.org/cong/research_ncs.html

Why not listen and bring in some church leader from outside the denomination (horrors!) to take a very objective look at the SDA churches and diagnose the problems and offer suggestions? A fresh, unbiased perspective can see things that we are unable to see because of the trees blocking our view. Continuing to practice the same things and expecting better results is the recipe for insanity. Continuing to beat the horse to go faster only kills the horse.

I've attended some large, not-so-large, and medium-size (200-400 Sabbath morning worshippers) Adventist congregations in this country. Including Loma Linda University Church. All of these Adventist churches are multi-staffed. I'm just wondering, Why? How many pastors do these congregations really need? IMHO, only one fulltime pastor for each of them! Compared to the small churches, don't these large, medium-size congregations also have more than enough Spirit-gifted, professional laypeople amongst them?

Josilito, that issue came up at a recent constituency meeting in Southeast California Conference with some calling for a reduction of pastoral staff to sort of spread out the collective pastoral might. It was actually a proposed action that received a vote, and was overwhelmingly voted down after a few minutes of discussion (this was a meeting of several hundred church leaders convening at the Loma Linda Chinese Church).

There are miscomceptions, I think, about what pastors actually do and why full-time vocational ministers are needed even in medium-sized churches. Lay leaders with other full-time jobs and responsibilities cannot do justice to the huge task of ministering full-time to a congregation. There is simply too much work to do.

If anything, we probably need more ministers, not fewer. The problem is that with the current economic downturn, tithe is ebbing, and conferences have less money to hire the much-needed help. This affects me as someone pouring lots of money into a minesterial degree at an Adventist University, with diminishing prospects of finding a good pastoral position. Money is an issue.

Jared,

I agree that we probably need more professional clergy; however, why the concentration in some large congregations and the multi-layered bureacracy as well? If we just spread out all our potential professional talent pool, assigning one to each of our small congregations, I believe there'll be a significant improvement in the program quality in every congregation. As a result, we won't have many more professional clergy in their 40's and 50's simply looking up, just listening to the same person preaching to them week after week. According to my scheme, we should be able to support more pastors, not fewer. This may well serve as a morale booster for our next generation of pastors and religion department folks! Let's do the math!

I'm probably one in the same situation as your friend, Loren. My husband and I went through the typical post-collegiate crisis of faith, but when we finally did decide we wanted a church community again, we just couldn't find an Adventist church that fit. I'd always been a leader type, but I had gotten tired of that role and just didn't have the energy to dig into the local politics to try to change things. The closest church to us wanted to pass out EGW literature on Friday evenings in the downtown area, and we just couldn't get excited about that.

After another period of not attending church at all, we finally found a small, non-denominational church that has grown from six people to over 40 in the past three years. Maybe that seems like small growth, but it's all authentic growth. The pastors have an Adventist background, but the church (spiritual community) is unique in my experience in that it doesn't have an agenda for how my life needs to start looking before I'm a fully accepted and beloved member. Its inclusiveness and commitment to helping each person find a spiritual path that is in line with his/her values and spiritual beliefs is what is helping it grow in the midst of San Francisco, an urban area that hasn't always had the best relationship with Christianity given how we seem to a location where the "nutcases" like to come to hold up their signs with Bible verses (Leviticus is popular) and "preach" about how we're all going to the hot place in a hurry.

The challenge for me with the local Adventist churches (and I'm speaking of other locations as well) were ultimately theological. The surface issues (all of the examples your friend cited) were rooted in a sense of superior theology that justified such behavior. A healthy dose of humility would go a very long way in many of these situations, but I'm afraid that's awfully difficult to figure into a master plan.

Joselito - not a "commissioned" pastor - but an "ordained" pastor. Let's quit playing games with our SDA pastoral staff.

This is NOT the 1950's. Separate but equal will not cut it.

Full status, full pay, full responsibilities.

Give them churches to run - not merely be associates in large churches. I truly believe it would make a difference in many places.

Donna,

To be a commissioned minister, as I understand it, means one has been given the same authority as an ordained clergy within the conference/union only, right?

If one has been commissioned once and were to serve abroad, would s/he require another commissioning service? Such won't be necessary in the case of an ordained clergy, right?

I know this is silly and very embarrassing on the part of my family because we live close to two Presbyterian churches whose pastors are women and they've become very close family friends of ours since my wife has served alongside them as their music minister.

My comment: To live in heaven with the saints...oh that will be glory. To live on earth among the saints...well that's another story. There is no good answer to religious and church problems. We just have to do the best we can, and not worry too much about it.

Frank's comment: I just cannot accept that we should just do the best we can, as has been suggested, because there's no good answer to church problems. That's not the church I read about in Acts. Nor will it help us fufill the mandate that I believe we are to carry out as the Body of Christ. "We're doing the best we can," has often become a euphemism for continuing a status-quo that is just not working.

My defense: Don't sweat the small stuff. Everything is small stuff. No matter how you package a theology or a church...there are still going to be problems. This is not the New Jerusalem. The best we can do is the best we can do. Playing the blame-game or engaging in self-flagellation won't help(unless you are Silas or belong to Opus Dei). I attended a model mega-church, where people came from all over the world to learn how to do it right. If you discounted the visitors...they had very few regularly attending members. Many of these members felt disenfranchised. I kid you not. The two services of 3,000 filled seats was not the true story of what was happening to the local congregation. Everyone has a bright idea for what the church needs. And many think that if everyone agreed with them, and did it their way...everything would be great. Unfortunately, we are all different. Actually it's fortunate that we are all different. I'm so confused! Leaders want us to think...alike! Sometimes we are deluded with conflicting delusions...and no one is right.

Come to think of it...what did Jesus say about church? Did he say anything about how to make a church work? Did he tell people to go to church? Did he build a church building, and ask for money? Did he have his own church? What did he say when the disciples were admiring a church? Didn't he tell people to pray in secret? Was he saying, 'don't go to church'? Is church part of the solution...part of the problem...or both?

Many SDA evangelistic efforts focus on the sensational…which mobilizes the paranoid members of the community…and creates new church members. Then the paranoia becomes focused on other church members…and the church is in turmoil. This is a very loose paraphrase of the experience of Dr. Arthur Beitz(the golden voice of Adventism) who later became a banker with a Rolls Royce parked in a carpeted garage. And some think Adventists are boring…the bland leading the bland. Do I have an answer? Are you kidding? Just beware of extreme liberals and extreme conservatives, historians…and especially Red Letter Christians! They are especially pernicious!

Some good thoughts here. Thanks for this rich discussion. A few additional comments:

I hope I made it clear that I'm not at all against small churches. There are, indeed, some healthy, happy ones out there. (The church of which I was the pastor for 11.5 years in Palo Alto, California falls into that category.) There's no doubt, though, that small churches suffer more from crises and conflicts.

As for the idea that we should just combine small churches, I think some of you have been too long in major metropolitan areas! I began my ministry in North Dakota, where distances are vast. You may wish to, but you can't really gather all the members from western Dakota Conference to form one decent-sized church! But wouldn't it be wonderful if we could be sure that the Adventist church in each of these small towns would be a happy one, would nurture our children should they end up there, and wouldn't embarrass us if a visitor happened to attend?

I do agree with whomever said, above, that planting new metro churches, at least in non-ethnic populations, has just led to lots of little struggling churches. Though I appreciate what I think the church planters are trying to do, perhaps they take too much of the Adventist ethos with them to succeed. I've seen few astonishing successes there, except with ethnic churches that would grow anyway.

Some said they think (contrary to my title) that this actually is a theological issue. Perhaps in some sense. But I think it is more spiritual than theological, if I may make that distinction. I heard Martin Marty say once that he divides religion not into liberal and conservative, but into mean and non-mean, and there are mean liberals and mean conservatives, and non-mean of both. As I said in the column, we've focused on orthodoxy to the exclusion of relationships and behavior, and I suspect that's why we've got so many churches that are mean but right, and don't understand how to be non-mean.

Finally, with regard to money, some start-up churches have an advantage that we don't: they can reinvest all their "profits" into new programs and staff, in order to facilitate early growth. That's surely not the only reason they grow - they're doing a lot of things well - but it is the case that in working within an existing organizational structure, we pay for that structure. That's not necessarily bad; but it is as true for churches as it is for General Motors.

Will God bless this church if we are continuing to treat our members unequally in the area of leadership skills and Spirit-given gifts for leadership?

Will God allow others from congregations which accept men and women as equals to "come into" the Adventist churches, some of which are squabbling over whether a woman can even be ordained as an elder?

I'd be embarrassed if the pastor of the Methodist Church where I play the organ, which celebrated fifty years of women pastors last year, decided to join my local congregation. She could not participate, use her gifts, and would be turned away at the door as an "outsider" and "troublemaker."

I agree with Ministry Magazine editor Cress who called not ordaining women one of the Three Spiritual Axes of Evil. That pretty well says it.

If our church is participating directly in the evil and arrogance of gender discrimination, how can He ever bless such squabbling, conflicting, arguing, congregations? How would that be in any way attractive to "outsiders" to join? It's already pushing away thousands and thousands of our own bright, well-educated, open, searching, Spiritually hungry young.

When are we going to "get it"??

How much loss can we afford? Let's get rid of the evil of sexism, gender discrimination, and downright arrogance about women. What, for the love of Christ (and I mean that), are we thinking?

I pray that my young daughter will be a member of a congregation where she sees powerful women leaders as role models. Where her own gifts are accepted and not shoved aside as second class to a boy's gifts. I pray that the congregation and church that we attend will affirm the spiritual gifts to all people.

Ironic perhaps that with her leadership skills she could become President of a country but not an ordained minister in her own congregation.

I think this issue is becoming, as Dr. Phil says, "a dealbreaker" for a number of bright, spiritually sensitive, Christ-loving people.

This church NEEDS its women to be pastors. NOW!

Daneen,
I am disturbed by the navel-gazing that has become fashionable:

1) We couldn't find a church that fit us and our needs.

2) We couldn't get excited about tract-sharing; so we left (to find something more "exciting" perhaps).

And more generally,

3) The pastor was unable to minister effectively because the church was so large.

Views that slide left often have disdain for the individual. Is this at play here?
Have you or I as individuals no responsibility to "minister" to others ourselves?

What are your (or my) "needs"? Is the church a shopping mall for such?
What about the needs of others?

What is more important in church? What we can "get" out of it? How "exiting" it an be for us? Or what we give to others? (Who says humanistic materialism hasn't finally taken it's toll?)

Finally, for a while now I have had a basic question for many here about religion and faith:

(There is a huge emphasis here all the time on things one person or the other "didn't like" or "didn't want to do". That seems to be the dominant theme of the blogs and comments. Every challenge is a bad thing. Every obstacle is to be avoided. Every affront to one's comfort must be circumvented through appeals to feelings, the latest opinions of the chattering classes or popular opinion and practice.)

Is there anything at all in anyone's faith-lives (so-to-speak) that challenge you to be something you do not wish to be/do something you do not otherwise wish to do?

How can you change without being challenged?
Or are we too good to change?

Typos:

--"How exciting it can be for us?"

--"Taken its toll"

How does a very small church (a dozen participants) "do" church? I was head elder of such a church for 13 years, and did a lot of soul-searching about this issue. I finally concluded that the core reason for gathering in the name of the Lord is to worship. Socializing is important, but you can do that in other venues; doing good works is important, but to do them in the name of the Lord, you need to worship first.

So I'm a Seventh-day Anglican--I think the real point is worship. Not getting entertained, maybe not even getting instructed--after all, we don't know much. I got some flak for leading my congregation too much in the direction of "liturgical" worship, based on reading of scripture, singing of hymns, praying together (yes, "read" prayers), hearing the Word, maybe sidestepping some theological divisions. Not very entertaining, but intellectually and spiritually nourishing.

I even entertained a notion of being part of a "liturgical" wing of Adventism--well, why not? We have watered down Pentecostalism, we have pop culture, we have old guard "traditional" Adventist meetings complete with altar calls, emotional manipulation, and masters of ceremonies. We have congregations based on ethnicities of all sorts. This is all well and good. Why not a liturgical SDA congregation here and there for those of us who cannot bear pop culture--or who merely want some simplicity?

Eventually some people came along who said "this doesn't feel like the Adventist church of my childhood". Then I learned that I was unlike other people who go to church so they can get back some of that feeling they had when they were little kids in church, who judge what goes on there on the basis of whether it's safe and familiar. They want to sing the same three songs in the hymnal.

I didn't want to go back there. I didn't like many of the songs we sang when I was a little kid. I liked the new (old) stuff that we never sang. I discovered one of my favorite hymns at age 50, in a church in the UK: it's now in the SDA Hymnal, #4.

So, I let go of it, and the order of service and emphasis went back to the same old same old. Today, someone asked me to come back and preach at that church in a couple of weeks. I don't really know what to do. Not sure I have anything to say. Not sure that what they need is to hear more preaching. I know that I need to hear a Psalm and sing a hymn.

Don

Anonymous--I always find it a bit of a challenge to want to respond to someone who has singled me out by name yet won't sign their name (or even pick a consistent pseudonym). However, I agree that my choices for not attending the Adventist church near me were quite centered on my needs. I had often been the one who would pick up the mantle of change and try to start something new. But that role had exhausted me and I needed to be spiritually fed. And, as you'll notice, there were major theological fit issues. When I hadn't been to an Adventist church in ages and was struggling to figure out if I still even self-identified as Adventist (not an challenge I've fully resolved even yet), I really couldn't hand out EGW tracks to tourists in Union Square. Maybe that's just a navel-gazing personal flaw, but it's who I was.

I do think we have to move past our own needs and be challenged--and I do in the non-denominational church I attend now. But there's a point where the fit/misfit is just too great. I'm hardly alone here. I can barely count on one hand the friends in my age group who attended college with me (now all in their 30s) who still go to an Adventist church. They all tried, but few found a welcoming place, and fewer found the strength to try to change an entire system and DNA that was long set, seemingly, in stone.

Daneen is absolutely right.

The radars are out when a new family comes to church. What kind of Adventists are they? Will they fit here? Are they vegan? Do they drink caffeine? Will they go to a movie? Do they eat chicken? And, most importantly, are they like us? How do they dress? Are they for women's ordination or against? We have so many more markers of piety than other churches. So many more layers. So many more camps. So many hurdles to friendship and collegiality.

If a family is not perceived as fitting in, an Adventist Church can be a very chilly church indeed. Especially if the family doesn't fit in with the prevailing and often intolerant views of the hardliners. What's a new family to do? Grit their teeth, attend church unwelcome, unspoken to, and shunned? This is not an exaggerated situation.

What child of God does not want to be among fellow Christians to share, be authentic, discuss openly issues, and find acceptance? To be himself or herself? If that is lacking in any congregation large or small, can the Spirit be there? Why would any family want to worship with the spirit of intolerance, shunning, unacceptance and sometimes blatantly expressed desires that they go somewhere else?

People KNOW when they are accepted and when they are unwanted.

Being a loving and lovable, accepting Christian. That's magnetic.

Daneen,
I tend to think in "patterns". Your comments were just an opportunity to ask a question. If it were otherwise, I would scold you in person!

The crisis is relevancy: Social, Theological, Therapeutic, Educational, Spiritual, and Cultural. What does it take to be inside? How long does it take to get inside? Is your person accepted? Are your thoughts considered? Are your services wanted? Are you a part of the family of God? Do members introduce you to their friends? Would you want to introduce members to your friends.

A doctor's title always helps. Money is the first thought. Status is the second. The worst fear is upsetting the status quo. Headquarters wants you as a statistic and as a money source. Just don't rock the boat-we were here first! The idea of going out of business to welcome the return of Jesus is the furthest thing from anyone's mind. Nest weeks Sabbath School lesson or when are the ordinances made up the agenda.

The crisis is simple. We now are the establishment! Tom

Don Rhoads:

I like the term Seventh-day Anglican. I'm probably close to this designation. But I think I might be closer to being a Red Letter Anglican. I like a liturgical approach to church. However, I would like to see a Desire of Ages version of the Book of Common Prayer...and a red-letter lectionary. The Psalms are included in their entirety, but not the Gospels...or the words of Christ. This seems very odd to me. I prefer the 1928 Book of Common Prayer to the current version. The 'Emergent Church' is interesting...but again I prefer the Desire of Ages to Marcus Borg or Brian McClaren.

Have you read 'Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail --Why Evangelicals Are Attracted to the Liturgical Church' by Robert Webber? There is a chapter containing the experience of former Adventists, David and LaVonne Neff.

What a tangled web some of us weave on our spiritual quests. For some of us, this is a painful, lonely, and rocky road.

Hey gang, I've got lots more to say on this thread--I'd really like to keep it going. Alex, take note. But right now I have to take my Sabbath morning walk in Morgan Monroe State Forest, before it gets too hot. Don

One thing I can really empathize with in the comments is Daneen's experience of feeling exhausted and burned out at the thought of being the one to take up a role of leadership and responsibility to bring about the type of change she wanted to see in church. A lifetime in a smallish church --often a contentious and difficult one -- has given me plenty of opportunities to feel that. There are a thousand very personal reasons why I will never leave my local SDA church, even though it's not always a good fit for me, but I do get tired sometimes of the effort it takes to stay there. I agree that religious is not an individualistic enterprise and that we should be thinking about more than just "What's good for ME" when we go to church, but on some level "What's good for me" does enter into it.

Dan & Orhodoxymorom,

Seventh-day Anglican - yes. I like the idea. Where do we meet?

You are right, a small congregation can function well with a liturgical service format. There is nothing more beautiful or moving than than the words from the Book of Common prayer for inspiration.

Celebrating the Eucharist and incorporating it into the worship service can be very meaningful. This format has come down to us from the very earliest days of the Christian church and should definitely be an option on the table.

By the way, doesn't tradition have it that the person "called" prior to Ellen White was studying for the Anglican priesthood? Perhaps God has a worship preference.

Small churches seem to be taking something of a beating in this thread: as a PK, I grew up in big churches but got dragged around to small ones at various times. I felt uncomfortable and exposed when visiting small churches—there was no place to hide. Later I found that many of these small churches are family affairs—one or a few families who know each other very well. Their services can easily degenerate into an easy conviviality that hardly transcends a social meeting and is not welcoming to the stranger who feels very much an outsider.

Big churches have advantages—they have enough people to create a satisfying roar when singing hymns, maybe a good choir or a great organ, or a charismatic preacher--all the resources to put on a good show. They can provide support groups for people under stress, and a sufficient number of adult Sabbath School classes so that the seeker/doubter/liberal can find one that suits her (but no guarantees if the SS superintendent is of a dictatorial turn of mind).

As Loren says, in a small church a single problematic person can “cast a long shadow”. And small churches seem to attract problematic persons perhaps for that very reason. Adventism’s evangelism, heavily reliant on decoding obscure symbols and visions, tends to attract persons of a certain mindset and implicitly gives them permission to indulge in various exercises often leading to conclusions that might charitably be called idiosyncratic. But the main difficulty is with the fundamentalists, who want all doctrine, and the most inconsequential matters of behavior to remain as they were since the Fathers fell asleep.

But there’s an upside to small churches, at least potentially, which I did not discover until I was given the responsibility of planning worship for one of them week after week—a daunting task—especially if the worship is expected to provide a “good show” or a “good sermon”. Abandon those expectations, and a very small congregation can provide an level of worship experience and congregational participation beyond anything possible in a larger setting.

The key is to build the service around the reading of scripture and singing of hymns. Much scripture reading takes some of the burden off the preacher—he/she can construct a “sermon” (which be shorter than we’re used to) as a commentary upon the readings. In “my” congregation we would assign the scripture readings at the end of the Sabbath School hour, and nearly everyone participated—either by reading scripture, telling a story to the children, leading out in a responsive reading, reading a Psalm. This is what I call a “liturgical” service.

Especially for a small congregation, it’s important to have a well-defined form of worship— laid out in writing—into which a variety of content can be plugged. This is important both for the one who constructs the service, who is unlikely to be a professional pastor. It is also important for the comfort of visitors, who may be put off by effusive shows of “friendliness” and invitations for self-revelation.

I'll be interested in reactions. Don

When I was leading a small church in rural southwest Virginia, we would occasionally have a time of praise and testimony in lieu of the sermon during the worship hour. People were invited to read a scripiture passage of their choosing, and also pick out hymns/songs that were especially meaningful to them. One of the ground rule was that the person had to say why they liked the selected hymn, and what it meant to them. This, of course, required that the pianist be able to sight read unfamiliar songs.

Even this was a faily conservative congregation, these special worship services were very well received.

Henry

Don (and all the other fans of Anglican worship),

I grew up in a Korean Adventist church. The youth worshiped separately in a side room in English, while the adults in worshiped in the sanctuary in Korean.

Our youth services usually consisted of 3 main parts, a praise time (guitar and praise music), a call for offering, and a sermon from the youth pastor. Nothing really thought out or profoundly theologically, but just a group of kids getting together and trying their best be religious. (I have many fond memories of with my youth group, so am not trying to be critical.)

As I've attended academy, an Adventist university, and attended numerous Adventist churches that are not Korean, I've realized that the formula is about the same...Music (and sometimes not all that good)+collection of money+sermon=worship service.

Because we have no developed theology of worship, we have congregations, who for better or for worse, are either married to a form of worship inherited from the Baptist church and evangelistic crusades, or people experimenting week after week with the "latest" praise music and instruments.

I think things are changing for the better, but we really need develop an Adventist theology of worship.

I really love liturgical worship, but realistically don't know how most Adventist congregations would make this transition--"It's too Catholic". There is a small group of Adventists here in New York (the Spectrum chapter) that meets weekly and uses a liturgical format. (I think their leader is an organist for an Anglican church.) I'm always feed spiritually when I worship with them.

One component of the liturgical service that I feel pretty strongly about, however, is the regular use of the lectionary for the scripture reading/sermon.

I've attended, and even worked at, too many churches, where the pastor preaches the same thing over and over again, avoiding, missing, or ignoring large portions of the Bible.

I don't think this is intentional, but this affects the congregation negatively, by giving them an impoverished spiritual diet.

Without the regular use of the lectionary, too much Adventist worship is driven by the soap box of the pastor, what is "popular", or the "felt" needs of the congregation.

We have some pastors reacting against "legalism" and historic Adventism preaching soley about grace. We have pastors reacting against this and preaching "the truth" (i.e. historic Adventist doctrines, with emphasis on the end of the world). I imagine the situation is similar in smaller lay led churches.

This is why, Pastor Loren, I think that the issue is theological. People are not spiritual because they do not get good "theological"/Scriptural teaching.

Zane,

Yes, yes, I’ve said it for years—Adventists have no theology of worship, and, for that matter, not much of a theology of the church, either. A few people have given it thought, but as far as I can tell, without much effect. You said it very well in paragraph 4 of your last post.

As to liturgical worship being “too Catholic”, I think that’s just code for saying that it seems unfamiliar to them. The church experience is for many an exercise in nostalgia, and whatever doesn’t fit that memory will be objected to. Matter of fact, some of the services I’ve attended where I felt the greatest sense of serenity and measured, contemplative worship have been Catholic monastic services.

Yes to lectionary. When I was casting about for a way to plan worship week after week, I talked to Steve Vitrano, then at the Seminary at Andrews, and he highly recommended the use of a lectionary. He had prepared one for Adventist use, a one-page single year thing, with short readings as is the Adventist custom. I ended up building on that and compiling my own lectionary for Adventist use, which I’ve dubbed the “Greenwood Lectionary”, after the Greenwood Church, where I served as head elder. Its readings are lengthier, as in the Common Lectionary. I have distributed a few copies, and still have some. I also wrote an article for Ministry on this very topic—The Word in Worship, January 1998 issue.

I never did get any of my pastors interested in it, and since I preached only part of the time, I ended up using it mostly as a sourcebook—when the pastor gave me his texts, I would consult my lectionary to find out what else might go with them. I did have one pastor who became quite happy with the idea of more extended scripture readings—he’s now pastoring in Canada.

Speaking of pastors, I remember one very conservative pastor we had who remarked, while teaching a SS class, “We Adventists have worn a trail through the scriptures”. That about cracked me up, coming from him, but O, so true.

My own experience is that it is possible for a pastor or church leader to push a congregation in the liturgical direction—I was able to do it, with considerable success—getting rid of the Emcee role, get more scripture read, introduce some silence into the service, talk about some of the principles of worship to the congregation. Some of this has had a lasting effect in my absence.

For Donna: Do you by chance live in Indiana?

I agree about the Eucharist. The problem we have with doing it more often than 4 times a year is the diktat that it always be accompanied by footwashing. I suggested to one part-time pastor (ultra conservative) that we might do it sometimes without footwashing and he told me in no uncertain terms that was non-negotiable.

When I was head elder at Greenwood, I made quite a deal of Holy Communion (which is what I called it), rearranging the chairs in a circle around the table and using a somewhat truncated version of the Great Thanksgiving for the service. My favorite hymn at the end was “Sent Forth by God’s Blessing” #407 in SDAH.

Last time I visited that church, one of the Elders approached me quietly and told me that some of the members there remembered those Communions with great fondness. I don’t know what he expected me to do about it.

I feel very deeply about Communion. It is the great celebration of our membership in the Body of Christ. No matter where I worship, when it is offered I take it. I hold it against the Catholics that they won’t let me (one of the “separated brethren”) take communion at mass.

To me a real Christian church is one where you are free to express your opinions, where you can be honest with your fellows about your doubts, where you can disagree, where people can hold all sorts of divergent opinions, and then at the end come together about the table and partake of the Bread and the Wine as one family, expressing brotherhood and sisterhood, and be moved to go out and work for peace, justice, and the good of the world.

Don

Zane,
I agree. And more. We need a theology of worship- I know many Adventist pastors who preach from the revised common lectionary. During the school year I was very blessed by regular weekday morning prayer which was read from the Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer. Unlike mass, prayer does not include the Eucharist...

One of the things that has impressed me most about Bonhoeffer is his insistence that proper theology required his students at the confessing church seminary to engage in rigourous readings of the Psalms, which he called the little Bible, and more- worship as central to good theology.

Indeed, this is not only about the theology of worship but worship as theology. Actually my advisor wrote a book saying just that:

Noting that academic biblical scholars and Christian ethicists have been methodologically estranged for some decades now, the author seeks to reframe the whole Bible-and-ethics discussion in terms of this question: What role does the Bible play in God's generation of a holy people--and how do we participate in that regeneration? The author first examines various major contemporary thinkers on the Bible and Christian ethics, including John Howard Yoder, Brevard Childs, John Webster, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He then undertakes major discussions of Augustine and Martin Luther, unpacking their interpretation of the Psalms. Finally, he articulates the processes of renewal in God's people. His close study of a few individual psalms shows how we enter the world of praise in which all human life is comprehended within God's work--and is thus renewed. Immersion in the exegetical tradition of the Christian faith, the author argues, must be the heart and soul of theology and ethics.

From Singing the Ethos of God: On the Place of Christian Ethics in Scripture

Seen this way, good worship and good theology, both of which should firmly be rooted in Scripture, are not mutually exclusive pursuits. Having said that, the problems of dying churches, young and eager seminarians worried about placements and the rest doesn't go away by our saying that the problem is theological. One thing doesn't deny the other and I'm sympathetic to Seibold, Larson and Wright. I don't see you denying that and I believe that Seibold makes a good point. Yet even so, it's a mistake to say that theology isn't the problem- it's partly true but not really.

Seventh-day Anglican--tell me where--I want to join. Born/raised/educated/careered/SDA choral director/music teacher, minister of music (30+ years of it) NAD, IAD and SAD (North, Inter, and South America), with intermittent parallel periods of Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, and now Lutheran music ministries--I like Lutheran the best--lots of Scripture, Psalms, hymns/music focused on the texts of the day, well-focused sermons on the texts of the day, yes, yes, YES!
Where, when can we get together and develop/practice an SDA version of liturgical worship?!

Harlen,

I think you taught for a while at Indiana Academy, didn't you? And for my brother Gayle at Lodi or somewhere else?

Well, I'm in Indiana, I guess you're in California. I don't know where Donna lives.

I guess the problem with doing a SDA liturgical church is that we enthusiasts are fairly scattered. But let's keep talking! Maybe we can find more.

Don

Don and other Anglican synpathizers

I was baptized by the founder of Amazing Facts when he was a pastor and on Sundays was constrained to attend a So Baptist Church with my father and feel quite familiar with these approaches to "worship" I have in my later years felt "drawn" to a more liturgical form of worship. Where were you Don Rhoads when our small churches were looking for pastors? I have always enjoyed watching some of the Christmas Eve Mass from St. Peters on NBC. I think many SDA's would be "blessed" more with a bit more liturgical service-reading Scripture even if it were from the Book of Common Prayer, singing hymns (many of them) without having to stand when we do it. I am going to get that book-Evangelicals on the Cantebury Trail. I did not know there were so many people out there like me. Thank you.

Yes, I did teach at Indiana Academy, and almost taught for Gayle. Yes, I
am in Deer Park, CA now, near PUC. Seems like a knew a Rhoads in
Indiana--was it you? The name Carl Rhoads comes to mind, but I can't
remember off-hand which school! (Age, I guess!)

A friend of mine was director of one of our conference youth camps, which rented out
to retreat groups during the winter. One time, one of these was a 'conference' gathering
of the ministerial force of another denomination. The president's wife, chatting with
my friend, exchanging views on this and that theological difference between SDA and
theirs, made the comment, "A lot of us think the Adventists have it correct, theologically.
When the shaking time comes, we wonder if you'll be ready for us."

Would some variety of worship styles within the Adventist church make it more comfortable
for a wider variety of Christians to more comfortably be shaken in to the Adventist church?
Or would public worship styles be unimportant at that stage.

I personally think our SDA worship needs a lot of attention. I think it has become bankrupt.

From the musical side alone, so much of our music seems to be coming, not from Christian sources, but from blatantly non-Christian, entertainment-industry sources/styles. I'm not criticizing Christian music of all styles for general listening, like during the week, but it
seems to me our worship music would be much more effective if it came from sources that have been dedicated all-along to the Christian ethos and aesthetic.

Add to that the sort of 'every pastor for himself' thematically/sermonically, and we really do have chaos out here. It's like in the Judges--'every man doing what is right in his own eyes.' It's not that they have it wrong, necessarily, but as one commentator above mentioned, everybody has their hobby-horse that they like to study and preach on. Of course this would lead to pastors moving a lot.--they have to be moved, so a congregation can get somebody else's hobby-horse for a few years. With a liturgical preaching calendar, pastors could stay put longer, and not wear out the 'horse.'

Harlen:

You are so right. I once loaned a copy of 'The Great Controversy' to a liberal Harvard-educated Episcopal rector. I tried to be cool, and told him about the plagarism and theological controversies connected with the book and Ellen White. He returned the book a week later, and had only praise for it...not criticism...and he was one who could criticize very trenchantly and convincingly.

I have a feeling that Christianity at large will be shaken harder than we have been. The comment, "A lot of us think the Adventists have it correct, theologically. When the shaking time comes, we wonder if you'll be ready for us." is very revealing. A liturgical emphasis should not be viewed as running back into the arms of mother church...but rather as a protest to the historical corruption, atrocity, and theological subversion of the teachings of Jesus. We need to be a comfortable refuge for those who are dissillusioned with 'big church'.

It's ironic that Geoffery Paxton, the author of 'The Shaking of Adventism' was Anglican, and that Desmond Ford is a former Anglican, who knew about the problems connected with Hebrews 9:12 before he joined the SDA church. Australian Anglicans, no less!

I think there are many holes in our system, and that we are taking on water...but I don't think we will sink. Rather, we will become a life-boat for millions of Roman Catholics and Anglicans. Again, the question is, will we be ready...or will someone else have to combine our best ideas with the best of liturgical communion, and be that life-boat? The Episcopal church may be that someone else...

'Not many people of moderate persuasion have much sway in the church any more. I was reminded why recently when the Episcopal Church did two important things: It elected a woman bishop to head the denomination, and it backtracked on appointing gay bishops. The first move seems Christian. Women deserve to hold church office as much as political office (one diocese, however, was so incensed that it voted to leave the church, and worldwide there are still Anglican movements that do not permit women to be bishops or ordained priests).

The second move was an act of cowardice because it did not reflect the ideals of love in Christianity and was motivated by reactionaries in the Episcopal denomination. Countering a long tradition of laissez-faire tolerance, the reactionaries have gotten tough and threatened to form their own church if gays are promoted in the priesthood. The worldwide Anglicans are more intolerant, upholding that homosexuality is forbidden, unnatural, wrong or an outright sin, depending on who is doing the disapproving.

You'd think that someone would stand up and ask a simple question: Who are we to condemn gays if Christ didn't? In fact, who are we to condemn any sinner, since Christ didn't? Christianity is about forgiveness, and for the past two decades, as fundamentalism swept through every Protestant denomination, moderates and liberals have been driven out, and were roundly condemned as they left. Along with them went tolerance and forgiveness, not to mention love.

Did Christ teach love or is that just a liberal bias? In the current climate, it's hard to remember, but one thing is certain: Once a tight cabal of fundamentalists takes over any denomination, Christ's teachings go out the window. The reversal of Christianity from a religion of love to a religion of hate is the greatest religious tragedy of our time.

Those of us who haven't been swept up in worldwide fundamentalism, which has corrupted Islam, Hinduism and Judaism as well, have been caught in a double bind. We can't join any sect that preaches intolerance, yet we can't fight it, either, because by definition fighting is a form of intolerance. To escape this double bind, moderates have stayed silent and stayed home. But that tactic failed. As healthy as it is to nourish your own devotion and faith, it's disastrous to allow extremists to take over the church, because the statehouse, the board of education, the Congress, and eventually the presidency are next.

Perhaps civil society will solve the problem of religious extremism. So far it hasn't. America finds itself in the sad plight of being the world's most prominent secular society hijacked by sectarians. One can only hope that the church comes to its senses and regains its moral center. If that doesn't occur, the core teachings of Christ will be lost, for all intents and purposes, to this generation.'

Deepak Chopra is the author "Peace is the Way," which won the Quill Award in 2005 as well as 41 other books. He is also the founder and president of the Alliance for a New Humanity, an international network of people from all walks of life who are networking together to see a positive change take place in the world.

Somehow this thread seems to have wandered onto a tangent of a theology of worship. Rich and thought provoking!

For sure, a great number of Adventist churches have become wedded to dry formality in worship. For sure, we need to discover fresh and creative ways to worship our awesome God. I appreciate the thoughts concerning liturgical worship, the desire for and need of an Adventist lectionary, the creation of a participatory worship experience in smaller churches, etc., to achieve such. Yet, I wonder, how many of these are broad based solutions? How much of what we propose, even in our efforts to be Scriptural, is actually based on our own desires, temperaments, and personal preferences and tastes?

Several people have expressed their love of liturgical worship. However, Zane made the observation that most Adventist congregations would probably find it too Catholic. I agree, but for more personal reasons. As someone who grew up in NY as a Roman Catholic who then joined Adventism, liturgical worship represents everything I left behind. Today, even a responsive reading gives me flashbacks of the spiritual deadness and formality that was part and parcel of my early worship experience, if one were to call it that.

I'm not saying this to put down liturgical worship. To each his/her own. And in some of these matters, I think that is the point. What reaches the soul of one individual or congregation with deep meaning, could be a totally alien experience for another.

I am now part of a small congregation that is filled with musical talent. Thus, we are moving in the direction of creating a worship experience that will be in a Contemporary Christian musical style...something that is off-putting to some on this thread. Something that is also off-putting to some older church members. But it is something that we are seeing that resonates deeply and personally with younger and newer members and guests. We're also seeing that it is a point of attraction for potential visitors as well. Additionally, it is unleashing musicians in our congregation who came from a pop background, to collaboratively use their gifts to worship God. In a more traditional format, these gifted individuals have been and would continue to be literally sitting on their hands.

My point is that a practical working out of a theology of worship, may end up looking very different from congregation to congregation, culture to culture, etc. Many factors are involved. What blesses me may not bless you and vice-versa.

As far as a liturgical preaching calender, that's another story.

Thanks for indulging me!

Frank

Hello again all,

Don: You are light years ahead of us all in your experience and ruminations about the structure and content of the typical Adventist worship service and the time you have actually spent in wrestling with and implementing these ideas is admirable. I wish I could have had the experience of worshiping with one of the congregations you have lead in the past.

I think the question Johnny quotes is important to this discussion:

"What role does the Bible play in God's generation of a holy people--and how do we participate in that regeneration?"

The issue for me is not really the "style" of worship, but the content of it. Substance should never be compromised for style and I believe this is the draw of using the lectionary for many people--consistent exposure/teaching of the Scriptures in community. This is the way Scriptures were originally "read."

Using the lectionary to guide worship, also does not relegate one to the use one music style, i.e. the organ, the piano, hymns, choir, or limit them to being audibly recited/read by one person or a group of people.

They can be incoporated in the the singing time (actually singing a Pslam), displayed on a screen and reflected upon in silence, expressed dramatically, etc.

One website I think that offers nice resources through the medium of video is: http://www.theworkofthepeople.com

Coordinating all this, of course, takes time and effort. I recently had conversation with our church pianist, who by the way is an Anglican minister. At his church, they spend 2 hours on Monday morning preparing the content and flow of the worship service for the following week. He then spends the rest of the week actually preparing music and practicing with the participants of the worship service. (Our service, in comparison, takes a considerable less time of preparation and coordination.)

Frank, amen on your comments about the inclusion of talented muscians (and others) into weekly worship. I had a question on your aversion to dry, liturgical services. What did you think about Redeemer's worship service? I'm curious, because IMO they do an extremely good job of seamlessly incorporating readings, confession, corporate prayer, responsive readings with wonderful, theologically rich music and teaching. (I love their jazz service on Sunday evenings.) I don't think they use a lectionary, but are intentional about covering the teachings of the Bible, including difficult/unpopular passages.

Also, on a side note, I don't see why Adventist have to develop their own lectionary. Using the ones that have already been developed and used by others would tie experientally to the rest of the Christian world on a regular basis. Our pianist, for example, has been very excited the few times I've had the chance to use the lectionary reading for the scripture reading and weekly teaching.

This would unify the experience of Adventists as well. Part of the problem Pastor Seibold describes stems from the fact that Adventist congregations are being taught different things congregation to congregation. A small church in New York might be studying the book of Daniel and Revelation, a larger church in the midwest might be studying something in the OT, and on the west cost, a book of the gospel. It all depends on the pastor or elder in charge. Aside from the the fact everyone is worshiping on Saturday, there is little or no theological consistency in our worship experience as a world-wide community.

Week after week, I believe all this is directly related to the "spirituality" of the congregation and the continuity (or lack of it) a person experiences when they worship with different congregations is directly tied to this issue.
(I don't think this is a tangential issue to the this post. However, this alone, of course, does not explain the problem Pastor Seibold identifies entirely.)

Frank,

I appreciated your liturgical observations. I am schizophrenic about the subject, and talk out of both sides of my mouth. It's a love-hate sort of thing. It can be very dry, repetitive, and dead. Or there can be a royal dignity, order, reverence and awe. I love Bach, and I mostly go for baroque. I love well done traditional hymns, especially during a processional or recessional, with robed participants actually processing or recessing. I also love contemporary music...but usually in a more relaxed or secular environment. I guess it's whatever works. If the church went liturgical, I would probably then want it to become praise church oriented. I would occasionally attend the Vineyard in Anaheim. It was a converted warehouse. But it was full of enthusiastic young people. I wasn't a big John Wimber fan...but obviously something was working.

I would like to see paid Ministers of Music in our churches. And not just lawn mowing or paper route pay. They should be theologically, psychologically, and musically trained...and perform a pastoral, as well as a musical role. This would make them more well rounded, and could help to justify a living wage. This is important work, and should be treated and rewarded as such.

Finally, I like listening to www.gracecathedral.org to hear the services at Grace Episcopal Cathedral in San Francisco.

We might want to see what's happening in American congregations in general in regard to local congregational conflict. Openly dealing with conflict seems the better approach. Conflict may be constructive. Among other things, it could make a pastor wiser. Especially in small churches, we need wise professional/lay pastoral leadership, male and female, who can deal with conflict openly and constructively.

"In the FACT 2000 national survey of 14,301 American congregations, 75 percent of congregations reported some level of conflict in the five years prior to the survey (Figure 1). At any given time it appears that about one fifth of congregations have active conflict."

Sources of Conflict
Control issues . . . . . . . . . . .85%
Vision/ Direction . . . . . . . . .64%
Leadership changes . . . . . . . .43%
Pastor’s style . . . . . . . . . . . . .39%
Financial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33%
Theological/doctrine . . . . . . .23%
Cultural/social differences . .22%
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16%

What were the positive outcomes
of the conflict?
Pastor wiser . . . . . . . . . . . . .72%
Purifying process . . . . . . . . .44%
Better defined vision . . . . . .42%
Better communication with
congregation . . . . . . . . . .35%
Stronger relationships . . . . .30%
Reconciliation . . . . . . . . . . . .16%
Growth in attendance . . . . .15%

What were your feelings about the
outcomes of the conflict?
Feel stronger . . . . . . . . . . . .60%
Hopeful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35%
Thankful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32%
Broken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26%
Confused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16%
Conflict isn’t over . . . . . . . . . 9%

Christianity Today survey, 2004

http://fact.hartsem.edu/InsightsIntoCongregationalConflict.pdf

The liturgical service has several advantages and many disadvantages:
Advantages:
1. It took serious thought and study to bring it together.

2. It takes talent, practice, and skill to lead.

3.It is God centered and worshipful in its intent.

Disadvantages:

1. It is repetitious, routine, and easily taken for granted.
2. It becomes a bead counting or wheel turning exercise.
3. It leaves the participant with a sense of accomplishment.
4. No thought or skill is required of the celebrant.

The SDA Order of Worship frequently has all of the disadvantages with none of the advantages of the liturgical style. No content, no style, no preparation, no participation.

The solution: Is preparation, talent, study, God centered praise, instruction, and blessings. The style has little to do with the value of the worship experience--It lies with the discipline and preparation of both the leaders and the congregation. Tom

Hello all,

For Harlen:

My son Karl Rhoads graduated from IA in 1981, I think, so I guess he might have overlapped with you there, and if he did, he probably sang in your choir. He’s now an attorney and represents downtown Honolulu and Chinatown in the Hawaii State Legislature.

For Zane:

I hold no brief for using my lectionary as opposed to the CL. But I did think that in the face of widespread Adventist exceptionalism, some pastors might be more inclined to use one that was somewhat tailored to their own needs and traditions. But I see the merits of using the CL. I’d guess that the CL is the product of many people over a long period of time and I make no claim that mine approaches its richness. On the personal level, the construction of a lectionary was a good learning experience in which I gained a far better overview of scripture than I had previously. You make many other great points in your last post, esp about content vs. style.

Dave, where was I?

I was learning, a slow process for me. I came up in a very conservative Adventist home and my Dad was a minister, and I drank from the founts of piety at both Southwestern and EMC. I’m not kidding about that—I still remember with fondness the great spiritual fervor there—but of course now I see sadly it was mixed with a lot of manipulation.

The most sacred times I remember were in the old chapel at Keene with Bob McManaman leading the singing from a seat in the congregation, his wife June playing what passed for an organ (a Hammond). Simple, beautiful, simply wonderful, none of the distractions inherent in having a “song leader up in front” waving his arms at us as if we were a choir and exhorting us to sing out.

A major revelation about liturgy came in October 1956 when a young lady invited me along on a junket with some friends (and a chaperone) to Chicago, and our first stop was at Rockefeller Memorial Chapel at the University of Chicago.

The choir processed and disappeared, the Dean stood in front of the altar and shouted “Surely the Lord is in this place, this is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.”

Then from the gallery high behind the congregation a choir sang:
“Thou shalt call thy walls salvation and they gates praise.”

Again the Dean shouted, in his gravelly voice, “Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”

The choir sang out “In righteousness shalt thou be established; and all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.”

I was dumbfounded, having never heard that kind of dramatic God-talk. Crusty, cold, dry, maybe, yet powerful. This was worship—God the audience, we the participants engaging in an act before him.

Well, I married the girl, now it has been 50 years. I was drawn back to that place over and over again, in spirit and in body. It was not exactly a paradigm for what I yearned for in worship. Nor is the worship from the National Cathedral that Jean and I take in each week by webcast. Some aspects of that seem a bit much—the mandatory “The Word of the Lord” after each reading, the genuflections. In that service, what melts my heart is the singing (chanting) of the Psalm. Despite the theological difficulties I have with praying for the destruction and damnation of one’s enemies, the Psalms are powerful especially when sung.

One of the passions I inherited from my upbringing is my desire to elevate taste—my own, and that of others. I’m with Harlen here. I have, over a lifetime, come to appreciate the great “cultural patrimony” that is embodied in western Christian church music including its hymnody, and I think popular music including “Christian Contemporary” is pretty shallow and boring stuff by comparison.

Yet who am I to say God cannot work through means that strike me as inferior? So I have to agree with Frank that “what blesses me may not bless you and vice-versa”, and I try not to be offended at churches that use popular music in their services, although I do my best to stay away from them. In candor, I can’t say that the CC songs that go on and on about how “I feel” are spiritually more offensive than some of those we used to sing so lustily in Sabbath School. I’m thinking in particular of one with a catchy tune—it was “The Glory Song”—which repeats the words “Glory for me” no less than 18 times. Is that narcissistic or what? Well, I guess it didn't permanently distort my psyche.

Don

Tom,

Even “non-liturgical” churches have liturgy—liturgy being simply what is done in worship. Gather the same people together week after week and they will fall into habits and patterns, and that will be their liturgy. You are right on--if there is no thought and preparation people will more or less automatically fall into the pattern of a social gathering, hence the prevalence of the role of a master of ceremonies: “Wasn’t that a wonderful song. Let’s all say amen to that. Now it’s time for the children’s story—all the kids come up front here and Aunt Betty is going to tell you a story....”

We human beings need to be hit over the head a bit to be reminded that there’s Someone else present to whom we should be paying attention. In "liturgical" worship there is a framework of provocative prayers (not just routine ex tempore recitations about the missionaries and colporteurs), substantial chunks of scripture being read, and worthwhile hymns, all of which ask us to pay attention.

If for some worshipers what we are calling “liturgical” worship is “repetitious, routine, easily taken for granted” that’s because they are not allowing themselves to be led to the content, not taking the cues, not drinking the water they’ve been led to.

Don

Don

My experience has been much as yours. I have been thrilled with a number of liturgical worship services. I have listened to many powerful sermons from the traditional SDA Order of Worship.

I like both when done at their best. I have observed the routine of some liturgies done by rote--dry as the hills of Gilboa.

The essence is the mind, heart, and soul totally involved in
worship as a reality of praise and wonderment for the power and grace, and love of a Creator Redeemer God in community.

"We sing the power of Jesus name" Tom

"Got so lost that i went to church
sorry god but you made it worse
made me sit beind a fence
haunted by the evidence
i guess you don’t want me to think
so instead i’ll dream and drink
got too drunk to drive home
in the cab i grabbed my phone
and made a call i might regret
to a girl that i just met
lately things are not okay
i just wanted to hear somebody say

if you need a reason as to why you’re here
you don’t need to look farther than me
if you need a reason as to why you’re here
you don’t need to look farther than me"

Mason Jennings, If You Need a Reason from the Bone Clouds CD.

No matter the type of service and no matter how much time we put into it and no matter if we have a defined Theology of Worship, the one thing that will haunt us is if in all the drive to "worship" God those that know "things are not okay" leave feeling worse.

Small churches, even though they may lack in great "peformances", stand in the unique position, if they choose, to be the very living body of Christ on a dirt floor grass roots level.

Great thoughts being expressed by all!

Let me share: By training I'm a classical musician...a guitarist by trade. I love Bach as well as much other repertoire... to play and to listen. CC music is surely not my first choice or preference for worship music. However, the leadership of our congregation has come to the conclusion that our worship experience has to transcend our own preferences and comfort levels, in order to reach out to others in a language with which they are more familiar and to which they can relate.

Ed Dickerson wrote a very insightful piece in the Review a few years ago addressing this topic. Just as 1611 King James English is for all intensive purposes a dead language, so is the musical language of many of the hymns we have grown up with in the church. Personally speaking, much of them I find to be sixth rate melodies with words that the uninitiated have a hard time understanding beacause they come from an 18th-19th century cultural context with corresponding linguistic syntax.

Now I'm not saying that the hymnal should be thrown out, or that people cannot have a deep worship experience with God through singing such. And yes, much CC music has vapid and shallow lyrical content, and must be well-chosen. But if the gospel is to be communicated in a contemporary and relevant fashion to each emerging generation, then it needs to be done in the language that generation speaks and understands, both verbally and musically.

Early Adventists, like James White and Uriah Smith adapted melodies like 'Camptown Races' to be sung in worship services, a popular tune of the day. Martin Luther of course used beerhall songs. There is historical precedence for taking such a direction.

In the end, we all, and I'm speaking more on a congregational level, must determine best what will suit our own worship needs and what will most clearly communicate the gospel and help those who come into our midst find connection with God.

And I still haven't addressed the idea of a univerasl lectionary!

Thanks...

Frank

Dick,

Agreed, warm human connection is what people are hungering for, and what will truly connect them with God. Worship hour "performances" can never substitute for this.

Zane,

I actually have not yet been to Redeemer. I've listened to some of Keller's preaching...right on. I've read some of his articles...really insightful... and their story, but have yet to get there in person. I'd like to see what their service is like. I also like the idea of intentionally covering the Bible through their preaching schedule.

That brings me to the idea of a universal lectionary for use in the world-wide Adventist church. I can understand your reasons for adopting this type of plan, but I have some misgivings about such an arrangement.

As things now stand, this is how the Sabbath School quarterly functions. The entire world church is studying the same lesson fron the same study guide from week to week. While creative teachers can help adapt the lessons to their home congregations, many feel that the concerns and needs of a congregation in Bangalore may differ widely from one in Boston. The centralized lesson focus simply cannot sufficiently address the local needs of churches throughout the world. I wonder if a centralized lectionary would suffer from the same type of limitations?

This is why I would favor what churches like Redeemer do, set up an intentional, through the Bible preaching schedule for the year. Who better to tailor such a schedule for a congregation's and community's needs than the local leadership? They know their church best.(This almost sounds like the political see-saw of local or state vs. federal control and legislation.)

Additionally, I see part of the preaching problem in our denomination as ministers filling pulpits who simply do not have the gift to preach or teach. I think that small churches, like the one I attend suffer from this problem the most. Large and institutional churches always seem to get the cream of the crop. Over the years, I can't tell you how many Sabbaths I've gone home feeling totally empty, feeling like I had to work incredibly hard just to glean some crumbs, or not even sure of what I heard. How can we ever invite guests to attend something like this?

Yes, we can get creative as Don has suggested, designing different types of praise and testimony services. But according to the NT, outside of personal example and connection, the gospel is communicated most powerfully through the "foolishness of preaching." This is what Paul continually emphasizes in Romans and Corinthians. I wonder if we sometimes under-value this within Adventism. That seems to be the message sent to small churches.

Anyway, enough of my belly-achin'! Some of us are planning on checking out Journey Church in Manhattan...Redeemer will also be on the short list.

Thanks...

Frank

Small churches can hold a "Readers' Theatre" very effectively. Put together a collection of scripture readings on a topic--perhaps the story of Joseph, or the book of Job, or Ruth. This works very well at passiontide--divide up the passion story among different readers representing different characters in the story, with one person playing the role of narrator (evangelist, for those familiar with the Bach passion settings).

Forget the sermon, or give opportunity for participants to make comments at the end. I can guarantee that the effect of a dozen people sitting around in a circle with one of these stories being read by three or five of them will far exceed anything you would expect in a small church. Much better than a bad sermon.

Don

I have been enjoying the discussions on the various forms of liturgy, and I believe that none of them have a monopoly on bvringing us to a true worship of God - much of it depends on the worshiper him/herself. Much of the music which we consider to be great was condemned as strongly as is some of the contemporary music currently sung.

However, the real reason I am writing this is that I reread Pastor Seibold's essay, and I would like to respond to it from a different tack.

Some Adventist churches I have attended are very warm - even to people dedecked with jewelery, but they have a very narrow definition of what defines as legitimate Adventist. Namely you must totally accept all 28 Fundamental Beliefs, and if you disagree with any of them, you are not a legitimate Adventist.

I believe that there should be a heirarcy of doctrines. First, what defines a person as a Christian. Second, what are the critical things which distinguish SDAs from other Christians. One of the most obvious is the day of the week that one goes to church. Finally, there can be certain doctrines which might be open for individual interpretation.

This has affected me personally because the local Adventist church has made it plain that they do not consider me to be a legitimate Adventist even though I believe that the seventh-day Sabbath is worth dying for, I believe in the soon bodily return of Jesus, I believe that the dead in Christ sleep until Jesus comes, and that the lost will be untimately destroyed (rather than burn eternally in hell) because there are some things I don't agree with - for instance, the way we try to set dates, the two-compartment heavenly sanctuary, and the idea that we are God's one-and-only end-time remnant church. They made it plain that one is not allowed to challenge any of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs during the Sabbath School discussion, and one is discouraged from challenging anything Ellen White has written.

I think that this all-or-nothing attitude is causing many thinking people to leave by the back door. In this area you must either keep your differences to your self, find a Sunday-keeping fellowshnip, or just stay home by yourself on the Sabbth.

Let's lighten up and allow for some diversity of belief within the church. We might all grow if we do.

Henry

My reading of the Book of Revelation leads me to believe that worship in heaven is liturgical. But what a choir!

A far cry from praise singing.

I don't expect that here and now, but a little practice would help.

The best sermons, I have heard took a life time of background, 6-8 hours to prepare and 20 minutes or less to deliver and a week to contemplate.

If a minister can't take a year's worth of sermon's and make a paper back best seller, he is not doing his job. Tom

Tom

Tom,

Heavenly music is also probably a far cry from even the best choirs we can hear now. But, the issue for me in the here and now is, who and what musical gifts are available, and how can we use those gifts to best reach others in a way that is most comprehehsible and edifying for them.

For whatever it's worth, the rule of thumb I always heard on preaching is for every minute of presentation...an hour of preparation. Study and prayer combined. Pretty heavy math!

Frank

Henry,

I really hear you on a hierarchy of beliefs...from Christian, to distinctly Adventist, to let every person be convinced in his own mind. Conservative Adventism often seems to put the second above the first, and makes no allowance for the third.

What a healthy alternative you offer! Wish we could see it take hold.

Thanks...

Frank

I find this an interesting discussion. The Wall Street Journal reports that 10% of the nation's pastors minister to 60% of the worshippers. The other 90% are increasingly becoming part time.

Part of the problem with the Adventist system is that the worst pastors get the smallest churches. I think you guys make a big mistake by promising life-time employment to a 22 year old kid in exchange for conformity.

Here is what you should do: decentralize. Let the small churches hold back the amount of tithe that would go to pastors salaries and benefits and let them hire the own pastor - and pay him whatever they want. If a church wants to grow they can pony up for a better pastor. If they want to share with another Adventist church let them. If they want to hire a kid right out of college that is fine too. Or if they want a part-time pastor let them do that (it would be better to have a guy in the community all week, then share a full-time pastor and only see him once a month). The worst pastors would never get hired and have to find another line of work.