Ryan:

These lines say it well:

"The issue is not sharing the good news. The problem lies in the misleading message that the Truth about God and humanity can fit onto a DVD and be delivered without context, study, or the honorable work of actual theologizing."

Like many other forms of ministry, public evangelism can be honorable and faithful. But promising a very poor person a helicopter in heaven is.......... Yet this an extreme illustration of a more general problem.

What is it? Perhaps part of it is that we seem to have few ways of measuring suceess and failure in ministry at any level--congregation, conference, union conference, division and general conference--other than numerical growth.

I feel sorry for SDA ministers who feel that the only thing that matters is that they "franchise and baptize." Also, who needs they a distinct vocation and speicialized training for that?

Dave

How we cheapen ourselves, our message, and most of all God, who can be "sold" like a product promising health, wealth and prosperity in the "pie-in-the-sky in the "sweet by and by."

From the very beginning Seventh-day Adventism has been "infactuated" with numbers: 2300 days, 666, and best of all 144,000. So why complain now? I am interested in the multitude that no man could number! Please join me there! Tom

I think this is actually Alex, Dave, but I still second your comment. This is indeed a problem:

"The problem lies in the misleading message that the Truth about God and humanity can fit onto a DVD and be delivered without context, study, or the honorable work of actual theologizing. This type of evangelism teaches Adventist young people to plagerise their faith, don't study it, just present it and you'll be fine."

I've long had issues with the way that we typically do evangelism (the Pyramid scheme analogy works well, Alex)--go to some "unreached" place, preach a Mark Finley/Amazing Facts type sermon, baptize, count numbers and pat ourselves on back, repeat.

It's always seemed to me that outreach/evangelism should happen in the context of community and authentic relationships. My parents church just had a traditional evangelistic series and they brought in a preacher from the east coast who had no knowledge of the community and left right after the baptisms. I applaud young people taking the reins and integrating faith into their field of study, but this is the sort of approach that makes everything seem so easy--just preach and they will come. This leaves no room for subtlety, nuance, or complexity for either the "preacher" or the "preached", and I'd be willing to bet good money that five years from now the numbers on both sides of the pulpit will have dwindled (although numbers are a poor benchmark in the first place) because this sort of simplistic approach promotes the type of black and white faith that crumbles upon contact with real life.

The Good News is simple, but this approach is simplistic.

It is a bit dangerous to consider analogies, since they are always partial and we all tend to over-generalize. However, in watching the ERC promo Alex posted I saw some significant similarities to the Mormon missionary program. The LDS church sends out young people (typically between 19 and 21) to do cold-call tracting work and when people invite them in for studies, the model is for the missionary to move the candidate through a highly structured program toward conversion. The parallels seem to me:

1) target college-aged youth to deliver the message (to be the 'missionary').
2) train the missionary with a structured and focused program, which lowers the bar for pre-requisite skill and background.
3) emphasize quantity (get more missionaries into the field) over quality (having participants with experience), which is also likely to result in greater success among those who are easily persuaded and thus more flighty.
4) segregation of the evangelism (done by the missionary) from the subsequent nurture (done by the congregation).

Now, I can see some benefits to such a system, at least in the Mormon, and potentially this ERC context. The primary and (IMO) most legitimate benefit is that the experience can be one of genuine and important growth - for the missionary. Second, if you cast a wider net you are likely to increase the 'catch'. But here is where the caveats should begin. A superficial evangelism will correlate to a more superficial commitment, an issue Daneen has already noted in this thread and I have also personally seen (in spades) in my Adventist experience. But I would also worry about the damage a missionary trained after this fashion might commit. We can measure the number of converts but not the collateral damage that might be caused in the 'acquisition' if the missionary has insufficient wisdom or sensitivity to deal with the intensely human (not propositional truth) dimensions of evangelism.

The concept of offering everyone, from any major, to learn how to share Jesus is admirable. The bigger problem keeps coming back to the fact that we tend to only have "one" way to do that. For too many students and churches alike-- evangelistic series are the only answer.

Whereas, like we are all wired differently with various strengths and spiritual gifts and passions-- how cool would it be to help students figure out their evangelistic styles and give them the freedom to experiment with how they might share Jesus in the most effective and energizing way for them, congruent with who they are? Off the top of my head I know that the book Contagious Christianity provides a resource to help people figure out their evangelism style: invitational, interpersonal, serving, confrontational, intellectual, testimonial, etc. While limited, I like the idea that there is no one "right" way to do it that everyone needs to learn to imitate, but rather the right way for each person is doing it in such a way that maximizes who they are.

It goes beyond the fact that we are all different people and not everyone should be up there preaching, to also suggest that our audience won't all be moved by the same approach. What would have happened had the art student used his artistic talent to showcase what God means to him? We would have appealed to completely different people.

Evangelistic series do "work." Enough that one of my seminary professors said "we know it's flawed, but until we find something better we have to keep doing this." So I am thankful for those students who feel more courageous now and for the baptisms where I trust that some of them will experience the spiritual journey... but I hope to God that somewhere we start to find ways where we can be effective than just "hoping that in five years half of them are still here."

We need more people out there experimenting, using their own ideas and gifts and areas of expertise to journey with people in ways that are more meaningful, effective and impacting. Show me the video where we encourage the idealism of youth to risk trying new things with hopes of making a bigger difference than simply being able to read someone elses notes.

Daneen
Yes, you're right. We're discussing the blog by Alex. Thank you!
Dave

As long as the comments agree, call me Alex. Please direct screeds to Ryan. : )

Dave, you're right. We have to get more sophisticated about measuring how we're doing.

Tom, I never thought of the numberless multitude that way. Thanks for sharing that interpretation.

SMN, I echo your emphasis on encouraging creativity and experimentation with theology. For example, I'm not sure that an art students needs to preach to be witness. It's going to take time, but one way we can get beyond traditional evangelism is to think about imparting more than beliefs -- more than just a head commitment, Adventism must be a community that takes personal and social ethics seriously (here I nod to the Adventist ethics community: . We've got to say less about a "personal relationship with Jesus" and talk more about Jesus' relationship to us as recorded in the gospels.

Daneen, I'm glad that you note the pyramid part of this. I hope it is clear to people that there is a bring 'em in and then flip 'em element to this. Especially with young people, this army of youth rhetoric sounds a lot like sales-forcing young faith. Get 'em while their passionate! Self-supporting institutions have really pushed this, with the worst turning new converts into pastors in less than a year. For example Mission College (Send forth reapers) offers this sweet deal: Pastoral Ministries (7 Months), ARISE, and Amazing Facts, which offers a four month "complete course," which will "cover counseling, personal evangelism, public evangelism, preaching, and much more." Interestingly the former head of the Amazing Facts program just got hired by Southern's School of Religion (where Folkenberg is listed as an adjunct) and Michigan conference systematically hires pastors from these less-than-associate degree schools. It reveals something about how some administrators value local church life when they foist "leaders" on congregations who have less training than some church secretaries. I hope that church boards demand more.

Evangelistic series do "work." Enough that one of my seminary professors said "we know it's flawed, but until we find something better we have to keep doing this."

How pathetic! The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting better results.

Churches are businesses. No business can continue to operate that doesn't produce a profit. That's the equation by which they operate: More converts = more tithes and offerings; fewer converts = less monies. So, as long as that is the operational model, numbers will be the game.

Convince me that I'm wrong.

Elaine
I got a big chuckle out of your challenge: "Convince me that I'm wrong." Now that really would be insanity--big time. In this case you are not wrong so no convincing is necessary. Tom

While I struggle to come to an understanding of what makes for good evangelism, and am very nervous about pre-packaged sermons, I would also like to suggest that we go easy on our brothers and sisters at Southern. What could we suggest would be a better way for people to learn how to talk about their faith?

I'm in the middle of Elizabeth Gilbert's book "Eat, Pray, Love" in the pray section which is telling her experience at an Ashram in India. She describes her difficulties quieting her mind, and I am impressed by the gentle response of the gurus. We could use such gentleness in our discussions with each other. There are people who want to know how to share their faith. There are people who want to listen. Like SMN, I wish that variety was more prevalent in Adventist evangelism. So what can we do about it? How can we make the change that we want to see?

Alex, why have you stayed, when so many of your fellow student preachers left? Can you help us with what comes after?

It's good to remember to be gentle, Bonnie. I remember that section of "Eat, Pray, Love" and loved it. I liked her discussion that spiritual journeys are hard work--that's why you need a guru to guide you!

I guess the only thing that I get worked up about is that the church and her institutions continually showcase and/or fund efforts to share your faith through evangelism the traditional way (proof-texting Daniel and Revelation and ready-made sermons). Since we tend to emulate that which we've seen, and since approach tends to be the only game around (and it gets support financially from both pew and pulpit), we just haven't explored other options for those who either don't have this gift or have issues with this approach.

When I've seen evangelistic series, it seems true that they "work", but I wonder if we ever evaluate the results. What portion of the population is drawn to Revelation seminars? As an urbanite in grad school, I know this would never "work" on my peers (and I'm not sure that I'd want it to). In addition to learning other ways to share our faith, we also need to think about our different audiences.

Bonnie asked: "What could we suggest would be a better way for people to learn how to talk about their faith?"

Why so much emphasis about talking? How about listening for a change? Why do we assume that we are the only ones who have the secret to living? If we could learn to be friends FIRST, then we are able to listen to what our friends are thinking and feeling. It is ONLY then, that we have a listening ear and not before. This assumes, that we have something very important to them that they are asking to hear. Some assumptions that should first be clarified, which is rarely the case with a Mormon-type approach. Didn't Jesus first feed people before he spoke to them? Didn't he see and sense their needs, whether healing or when they requested answers? Shouldn't we emulate his practices?

How do you feel if someone approaches you, whether Mormon or JW and is most eager to tell you what HE believes? Who cares? The old saying: I don't care to know what you think until I first know that you care (about me), is still an excellent rule to follow.l

Well put, Daneen. Thinking about the many different kinds of audiences would help us come up with different kinds of approaches. What do you think would work with your peers?

When I read writers like Gilbert, Anne Lamott, and Phillip Yancey, who make talking about their spiritual journey seem like an easy thing to do, I feel like it should be easy for me, too. But it is not. I haven't figured out how to convey nuance, how to be positive even if I have doubts, how to be funny and real like they are. Irony plays such a significant role in current conversation. Where does it fit? In Stephen Colbert fashion, I am Adventist and so can you?

Bonnie

I think the church confuses recruitment with evangelism.
Evangelism is telling the Good News to willing listeners.
Recruitment is Marine style: "A few Good Men" a challenge rather than an invitation.

Recruitment varies how afraid can I make you about your end fate or How can I create that elusive priviledged few?

The worst of SDA evangelism comes out of the Oregon Conference and a powerpoint science fiction version of the Book of Revelation.

The Book of Revelation was simply a "This too Shall Pass"
assurance to a beleaguered church from an Apostle who had seen it all.

Heads, horns, scales, teeth, and scarlet women are not part of the Good News. The good news is Jesus Christ is my Elder Brother and my coming King.

Let us leave apocalytic foreplay and get to the Eschaton--The Alpha and Omega of our Salvation.

What needs to be done is to do a William Miller. Tom

Interesting indeed. Bonnie’s comments resonate because she’s at the very same place in Liz Gilberts book that I am! and her questions/impressions echo mine. Our author speaks from his perspective; grad student at Berkley. Dear author; yours is but one perspective. Valid yes; but seeing it from one “place”. May we, in grace, grant to others theirs. Very easy to criticize Adventist evangelism (I’ve done a lot of that in my time) -- harder though, to offer a better way.

I both love this post -- and hate it… Sorry…

May I share this; the moment I realized I had “lost” my own daughter to Adventism was at a regional conference (I forget what the “official” name is…) with Mark Finley. Gawd -- I love and respect that guy. My own dad loved him too -- believed in his mission -- and Mark returns that affection he (Mark) told me. This was maybe 6 plus years ago. Here in Orlando. The “event” was triumphalistic; self congrateletory; and, my daughter sensed in an instant, more about “us” that about the Christ we claim to serve. She was maybe 15 or 16 at the time. “Do the math dad” she said; “we’re so far behind that Jesus will never return if it’s only about stuff like this. Do you think maybe God is much bigger than just we Adventists?”

God; I cried inside that day; she was so right -- and I knew it. And it was all my fault; for it was me who taught her to think independently. So she did; and found Adventism vastly deficient and wanting. I tried to introduce her to the Adventism of Spectrum, and Alex, and Bonnie, and Dave, (all of whom I disagree with when needed -- but in love). There ARE people inside Adventism who see what you see -- and want to change it…

She chooses her own path with God -- and it’s a path I bless with all my heart and my soul. Besides, few others that I know know their bibles as well as she does. Just the other day I asked where a certain text I was pondering might be found… she told me where it was within two verses. Total cold recall. I was stunned… And she deeply loves the God of that book she knows so well…

Can we all just stop right now and agree that Adventism is flawed? Deeply flawed? Oh Lord: how can we bless the efforts of each other -- even though we find them deeply flawed -- just as we wish our own might be blessed? If we do believe that God blesses us -- and leads us to Himself from where we are -- might He be doing this through this ERC? Which is so easily found fault with??

Would that God grace my daughter, in her sojourn outside Adventism, the fortune to find solace with people like Elaine -- and Tom Z -- who grace our presence here… Folks, it’s about God; not us. And God moves in mysterious ways. (I use that line on my kids when things are not going the ways they had wanted…) But He is here too; how might we ennoble and bless the path of those we disagree with??

It is so easy finding fault with traditional Adventism; so easy that I wonder if that is even what I am called to do… How can I, who call myself an Adventist (you of course may disagree) bless those flawed ones around me?? At some point, we must ask ourselves what Luke 9:50 means to us in OUR own context.

No, it’s clear to me now. God is bigger than all of us, and our lovely persuasions. He embraces us all -- even in our flaws -- and bids us do better. Better than ERC (it’s a place; perhaps a start) and better than Spectrum blog (it’s also a place -- and start).

Just musing tonight...

Caring, classic Bob. Love and hate. That reminds me of Robert Mitchum's knuckles in Night of the Hunter.

Yeah, I certainly am not aiming to attack an institution, only to raise awareness via this evidence that this broader approach is not only superficial; it mimics the marketing way of the world and offers false change to Adventist youth.

Is Elaine right that churches are businesses? Granted it's interesting that fellow America-spawned faiths like Mormonism and Scientology operate top-down, with serious attention to the bottom line. However, I think that equating church to business is reductive, although I'd be interested in thinking about how a company like Disney creates a cultural community, which has some interesting parallels to us. Compared to these other US examples, I think that most of our leadership has done well to overcome the market pressures to treat the church like a corporation.

Those who left either are part of communities -- gay, arts, academic, -- that have built-in assumptions at odds with the Adventism they knew or they had premarital sex or drank alcohol and felt happier or lied to and left or they, for whatever reason, chose spirituality or non-belief or a religion that answers different questions. What's after? I think that it depends whether the church gets serious about moving away from emphasizing personal relationships with God (which at core is logically at odds with sticking with a church) and puts its massive cultural production effort into creating an wholly ethical Adventist identity so that people start to answer the question: why are you an Adventist?, less and less by mentioning a belief or the word truth or because Jesus died for me and instead say because it calls me to do this or that because it connects all these meaningful aspects of my life.

Why have I stayed? In part, because of the all-too-rare kismet of having professors, books, friends, and cultural experiences teaching me that Truth is not only private comfort but also a habit for action. And that I find my Truth and my community align satisfyingly with my private existential haunts and my ethical ideals for humanity.

I guess my question is: can our church eschew its overt ways and move toward something more intangible, but also more deep and potentially viral?

This thread caught my eye when I received my weekly newsletter. I am currently a pastor and I have some conflicting feelings. The first is the same frustrations that others have posted, i.e. the system is broken but there is not better alternative... I would propose that there is a better alternative, but it takes longer and doesn't produce the numbers that make Union Magazines look good or that Conference presidents can go to their peers and brag about. At least not in the short term. What I think that Southern is on the right track of doing is helping the students there see that no matter what their career they are ministers and that they have Good News to share, I wish that more of the people in my pews would realize that and not depend on us pastors to be, well to be their priests?

I am also interested in the discussion of pastoral education. I am not for the alternative forms of education mentioned in the postings, but that is mostly because I'm not sure that I like their theological bent. But I would be sad if education or lack there of ever disqualified somebody from their God given calling to pastoral ministry.

Funny that Dave would think this was me. This truly is my pet issue: the way we have taken a narrative, abstracted from it propositions, reduced the kingdom to those abstractions and market this 'commodity' to the world as something life changing. This is a fundamental challenge to the work I do each and every day. Everytime the denominations uses language like soul-winning or evangelism or growth this imagination is implicit. It's been so long since I've related to that kind of distorted gospel that I hardly remember what to do when I encounter it in a pastor's meeting.

One more thing. There is some talk in this thread about whether or not "evangelism" defined in this way, "works." This, to me, is the fundamental problem. The Christian narrative has been co-opted by an economic logic of production and efficiency. Inside this narrative, the question of what works makes total sense. The real question I have about whether evangelism works, is: "Works for what?"

I wrote about this on my blog about a year ago. I have no question that evangelism, the way we do it in our denomination, works, according to the utilitarian logic of the market. It's actually not rocket science. It's a numbers game: X number of flyers mailed yields Y number of attendees on opening night which yields Z number of converts in the end. The problem isn't that it doesn't work. The problem is that we have externalized the ends for which the church exists. The logic of evangelism, according to scripture, is witness. When you change the operative logic from recruitment, as someone noted, or conversion, to witness, the whole thing changes. The gospel is not some a-contextual, commodity that can be transfered in a transactional way. What we are doing may be working, according to some reckoning, but it's not evangelism and the thing being dispensed is certainly not the gospel recorded by the Evangelists in the first four books of the Christian Scripture.

Bob, I loved your comment: "Folks, it’s about God; not us."

If that should be our message, and I believe it should, why focus on the importance of being an Adventist?

Alex, I may not be getting your message when you say:

"What's after? I think that it depends whether the church gets serious about moving away from emphasizing personal relationships with God (which at core is logically at odds with sticking with a church) and puts its massive cultural production effort into creating an wholly ethical Adventist identity so that people start to answer the question: why are you a Adventist?" Which is the opposite of Bob, and my theme of "It's all about God, NOT US.

Both of those topics: the importance of having a personal relation with God (how does one do this with an abstract idea?) and creating an ethical Adventist identity...."

Why is being Adventist of ultimate importance? Isn't that placing an inordinate amount of importance on a particular denomination, rather than the Gospel that knows now boundaries?

Far be it from me to be blind my eyes from true dishonesty in our church. I hope I remain perceptive and vigilent for misguided evangelism, but I am not the slightest dismayed by the ERC video clip. It is simply providing support for a worthwhile mission that most Adventists, young and old, see has their primary reason for being Christians.

Please, fellow first worlders, let's not allow our vast access to information make us paralyzed, unable to bear witness of our Lord and his imminent revelation to our friends and neighbors. Let's encourage each other to all participate somehow in the gospel work, through preaching, and also peace making and service. I agree, we Adventists have always been number oriented group. Christ himself instituted the concept of 100% participation; it is not a pyramid scheme, it is an authentic movement. It's up to us to keep it godly.

PS I'm one who loves Robert Folkenburg and his smiling Jesus. (see the portrait on the ShareHim.org web page) Thank God some now seek to meet the spiritual needs of the developed world in which we live in a positive, Christ first manner.

Well, it is the first time in many years I have seen an Adventist evangelism-related video. The purpose seems motivational, and presents a series of "testimonials" that claim to offer a life-changing experience to those who participate, both the student preachers and the converts. In this way, I agree, it is very similar to many other marketing pieces which overclaim and ignore disconfirming evidence and competing programs or products. So far, I think we can agree it's a middle-of-the road piece of propaganda. I've seen the same kind of thing on tv a hundred times. So long as it does not contain deliberately misleading information, I think the American and Adventist public are quite used to promotional media that present only one side and makes promises that are only possibilities, not certainties. It is the genre! As far as offering an experience, so long as it it is not coercive or corrupting, it may benefit participants. Young people (and older) should stretch themselves and get involved in all kinds of things that take them outside their comfort zone. I don't know if this program does this, but I am sure that for some, it would be challenging and potentially transformative. You can argue that such promotions should be done a different way, but I don't see anything, Alex, that warrants your sensationalist title.

For me, I am not given enough information to make an honest decision. The clip was about interesting participants in "one form of evangelism" and some saying how they benefited. So it also says how many were baptized...how would I know the quality of those converts?
I don't know anything about Folkenberg other than he was a former GC guy. Does that automatically discredit him? They also can "possibly" be saved!

So what is:

1.The content of the actual CD presentation for the prospective hearers? Is it introducing them first and all to Christ and the "now and not yet" Kingdom of Christ to be delivered to the Father at the 2nd coming? Not primarily to our understanding of prophecy and Dan.8:14.

2.Is it in the indigenous language therfore creating a "seemless" presentation (not requiring translation)

3.Is there already a church plant there so that those baptized are discipled by a local church and it's members? I have seen ADRA, partly using US tax dollars create clean water facilities in 3rd world countries also for "present needs."

One thing is for sure...offering them the UN, the US or any other nation, or the Democratic and Republican candidates won't secure their eternal salvation...and often not much but "hot air" in the present age.

And what is wrong with "pie in the sky bye and bye." It is "Part of" that spiritual wisdom that says, "Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, And which have not entered the heart of man, All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”

"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you." All of the "gentiles" seek present "salvation."

Graeme Sharrock -

You have expressed my thoughts about Alex's blog much better than I could, Thank you! Alex, thanks for introducing this very interesting and timely subject. I just think you came about it a tad too strong. Personally I would have been turned off by the vangelistic "promotion" developed by Southern, but then I'm the kind of person that required two years from my first serious interest in SDAisim until I became a convert - convert in this case meaning accepting Jesus as my Lord and Savior. Just because some of us are turned off by this kind of evangelistic outreach doesn't mean it will not be successful with others, and if so, that it will produce a "lesser quality" Christian.

Bonnie has developed at least one good followup idea to the problem identified by Alex - let us, among other things, try to develop ways that we can be personally successful in sharing our faith and getting others to accept Jesus as Lord.

I suggest that this quarter's SS lessons on discipleship may help us with some ways of accomplishing the objectives raised by both Alex and Bonnie. For example, Harold Weiss', "Ruminating on Discipleship," [See SS Center] introduced me to the possibility of two major divisions of Christ's lordship; the cross [sadness] and the resurrection [triump, joy] which has provided me with some ideas that I want to use in sharing my belief in Jesus with others. Richard Choi's, "Relationships Then and Now," [See SS center] makes it clear that if we are going to try to practice discipleship [evangelizing, sharing our faith] as it was practiced in Christ's day, it isn't going to work. Times are different. This may be why many SDA's, who want to closely follow the Biblical models and examples, are not being as successful in their personal discipleship as they would like.

Brantley Johnson

Bonnie asked me what I thought would be the right approach to my peers (urbanite grad students, by and large), and that got me thinking this evening about what it is that I'd be sharing in the first place. The peers whom I've gotten close to don't really seem to be looking--I consider them very spiritually aware, seekers even, but definitely not seeking for doctrine or dogma. I had a very thoughtful exchange with a professor about spirituality prompted by a response paper--she is a Buddhist and is the sort of person that seems to be able to tangibly radiate how much she cares for those around her--I feel that I can learn a great deal from her about how she cultivated her stance of abundance and compassion. I guess I'm finding that the best "witness" is authentic relationships, although I don't have an agenda to invite anyone to church or such (maybe that's what makes it authentic).

I pass several churches during my weekly routine, and the only one that I've ever seen put up evangelistic signs of any sort (or send out pamphlets) is the Adventist church (those horrible beasts of Revelation signs). Interestingly enough the Presbyterian church recently put out a sign about a new monthly spiritual film series that it's hosting--come see a movie, get some snacks, and discuss significant issues with your community. That seems like a way to build real relationships, offer a significant service to the community, and just be good neighbors. Maybe they consider it evangelism; I don't know, but I do know that next semester when I don't have a Thursday night class I'll be going.

It appears that the numbers-driven method of evangelism promises "golden helicopter in Heaven" which will take those poor people living in ramshackled huts on stilts to the promised land-- The United States.

Unfortuntately, most of the current breed of foreign "missionaries" do not speak the language or have no or have a very scant idea of the dymanics of those societies there these kind of evangelism is practice. The message is presented as a superficial cure-all, a panacea, without regard to the historical context of the society where is it being preached.

Let me relate two equally embarrassing stories about how I was suckered.

The first happened in Chattanooga Tennessee just after I got engaged to my wife. Some people got our contact information and offered us a free trip to a warm, tropical, all-inclusive getaway in exchange for our sitting through a presentation on waterless cookware. Nobody explained how these things go. We went.

The slick presenters told us all the reasons that our health is in danger when we don't use waterless cookware, and how using their products will make us exponentially more healthy and efficient.

We ended up with a $250 $&*#! pot that we've never figured out how to use properly and a free trip to someplace we never went. They know that this will happen, I've since realized.

The second story (which elicits the same emotions in me as the first, and for the same reasons) happened when some friends told me about how much fun it was at Southern Adventist University and how there are tons of outdoor sports to get involved in etc. Besides, it's the most spiritual school in the Adventist system, everyone agreed.

I didn't know how things worked there, so I went. I ended up with a $60,000 &*#$%^@*&$%! piece of paper with my name and theirs on it.

Bonnie certainly raised the bar high for civility in this thread, and my post certainly falls short of that mark. Nevertheless, I don't think that if I were given an exit survey upon leaving that place I would have said things much differently.

My strongly negative sentiments toward my alma mater are the product of what Alex's post points out. This brand of doing theology is assembly line theology. Cookie cutter theology. Baby bird receiving regurgitation theology. It's exactly what the video portrayed: a pre-packaged, one-size fits all, ready to go evangelistic campaign aimed at churning out converts just as quickly as possible with the ultimate goal of getting them out there winning souls, whatever that's supposed to mean.

My curiosity, my sense of inquiry, my interest in Scripture, my GPA, and my spiritual life never suffered as badly as during my stay in Collegedale. Recognizing that their intentions are honorable, and that they believe they're doing good, I should probably apologize for verbalizing such strong displeasure, or at least tone it down a bit...

I've almost moved on.

p.s. I transferred there as a third year theology major and promptly switched to religious studies upon arrival at SAU, for whatever that might be worth.

After watching both videos, I'd have to say that PriMerica looks more attractive and life changing than ERC. Maybe when these students from SAU get enough new members and the church has more tithe, we could make even better videos to beat PriMerica at claiming the ultimate in life changing experience. I thought it was ironic that one of the people on the ERC video said we can't do anything without God. But it almost sounded like you could dispense with God as long as you had the ERC program telling you what to do and say. The whole thing was rather ERCsome.

As a 30-something member of a small church I have struggled with the obvious importance of mission to our church while at the same time recognizing through repeated experience that our sustainable growth has not come from traditional evangelistic series or TV seminars. It has come from the blatant direction of the Holy Spirit in ways that often either had nothing to do with our personal efforts or used us in such a way that it was clearly God's work and not ours.

An example: we recently held a bi-lingual Spanish/English revival at our church, partly as outreach, partly as a time of spiritual renewal for our members. The Holy Spirit just came into those meetings in a way that surprised all of us. Attendance each night was greater than the last, with people coming in from the community, both Hispanic and English, sometimes just having seen the sign in our front yard. The meetings weren't a series of doctrines, but just a simple call to unity——that God's church is a house of prayer for all people——and surrender. I'm not suggesting that these are the ingredients for all successful outreach, just that this is an example of what the Holy Spirit did that was unexpected and life changing.

Two things I've learned over the past 10 years: prayer is the most important tool of outreach and, just like the founders of our church did 150 years ago, we need to employ what works for where we are——both in time and place. Adventists have made traditional evangelism a doctrine in our church to such an extent that we fail to remember that pamphlets and tent meetings were cutting-edge means of reaching the population in the 1800s and early 1900s. I think today, personal relationships and the Internet offer similar kinds of opportunities to reach even larger numbers of people, if we thoughtfully, creatively, strategically and prayerfully apply these more relevant methods.

The bottom line is surrender. I believe that methods are important. But if the message is not relevant to me on a daily basis, it will not be relevant to anyone else. And I will not be able to serve as a conduit for what ultimately doesn't not come down to doctrinal choices but spiritual rebirth.

I love and dispise the word surrender. "All to Jesus I surrender" a theme song as the evangelist whispers "With every eye closed, every head bowed!" the organist will play "Just as I am withut one plea" "All to Jesus I Surrender" "I surrender all". Slowly people start their way down the sawdust trai; many weeping, to be gently led to a pew down front.

The music and encurangement from the evangelists continuing until the spell is almost broken. Then a short prayer, a hymn of praise and the evangelist turns his eager attention to those who came forward.

Now much different is "There is a place of quiet rest, near to the heart of God." Jacob came to that place with a rock for a pillor. Mine came in a hay loft on a clear moonless night with the Milky Way as a halo over the Campus at old E.M.C. It was my father and mother, and a couple of godly teachers who loved me first and taught me second.

I am 100 percent in favor of evangelism. and less than 20% in favor of "Crusades". Yes about 2 in 10 are substantial on soteriology and the rest are on Eschology or charismatic gifts of the "evangelist. Tom

Tom,

You said,"I am 100 percent in favor of evangelism. and less than 20% in favor of "Crusades". Yes about 2 in 10 are substantial on soteriology and the rest are on Eschology or charismatic gifts of the "evangelist."

I agree Tom. Silly me, I still love Billy Graham Evangelistic crusade where Christ and Him crucified is preached with the exception of the 2nd coming only occasional allusions to eschatology.(However, one of my systematics profs at RTS pointed out that Eschatology began in Gen.3:15)

I was baptized in 1956 an SDA at age 11. I met my savior Jesus listening to Graham in 1957 on TV with my mom and dad."There is a fountain filled with blood" for sinners like us Tom for the forgiveness of sins.

Isn't that fact the beginning of our attitude of love and forgiveness for others...just as we have been forgiven. Isn't it the source of our self worth, that God so loved us He died for us. Who is he that condemns, it is Christ that justifies.

Pat

I agree on Billy Graham "56. He began in a church basement in La Grange, Ill in the early to mid 40' He packed them in.

Mister Luce got a hold of him and had his publishers "puff" him. He became the confidant of Presidents etc. In the process he tempered his message to almost a sub audible expression. He still was a great voice in the indivisible nature of Christianity. Tom

I am an alumni of SAU. I came out of my time at Southern very "black and white." Through life experience, marriage, wonderful influences and interactions at the Seminary I have moved away from that. I moved away from it because I didn't see Jesus just fitting into one groups box. I didn't see how it made sense for Jesus' love to only be shared in one way, but that there are many different avenues in which to reach people. It seems the group I moved towards, has the same problems as the group I moved away from.
I can't speak to the 50% that Alex spoke of that care little for Jesus or the church after they preached in the Philippines; I can however share my experience. I went on one of these cookie-cutter, assembly line, mindless deliverance of the message trips. I did read from the "script" with minor modifications from myself. And it seems that people on here want to devalue that. But no matter what is said or the criticisms launched against this project it was life changing for me! I have never been the same. And isn't that what we all want, people to be changed for Jesus? I don't like public evangelism and doubt the potential for much good in the U.S.A. but I saw people's lives in Africa changed. Preaching those messages I began to see areas I didn't agree with that we taught and the way we taught it, but I also saw so much more beauty in the Adventist message in other areas. I learned to trust in Jesus because making a call each night, you discover that the response is solely based on the Holy Spirit. I learned to embrace other cultures. I saw how blessed I was to live where I lived. I learned to value people at a whole different level. I began to desire peace and not war in our world. All of this started with one of these ridiculous propositional events...it may not fit exactly what I think is the best, but there are people who are changed, and I thank Southern for giving me that opportunity to experience that change, and for so many of my friends and other young people I know who feel the same way.

Once there was a smooth-talking man selling "snake oil" that would cure everything from cancer to warts. He stood in the public square and from his soap box touted the miracle working properties of his "snake oil." Thousands bought his potion and for a while he was very "successful." It was working! However, very shortly people began to discover that their ailments were not cured. When they tried to find the eager young man he was nowhere to be found. He had moved on to the next town to sell his "miraculous" product. After all, it had worked so well in the previous town.

Before long doctors began to examine the claims of this product and learned that is was nothing more than sugar water with food coloring in it and some other additives to make it taste bad - after all, it couldn't be medicine and taste good. These doctors tried to share the truth of the situation - that people were being taken advantage of. But this would-be healer was so sincerely and earnest and he seemed so nice, people just kept buying the stuff.

After a while there were some doctors who knew the stuff was a fake cure - offering false hope - but they reasoned, "Let's not be too critical. After all, the guy is so sincere and he really means well. He really is raising awareness that we need to be healthier. How much harm could a little of this fake cure do? We should allow for a little of this to be sold."

But others insisted that perpetrating a fraud on the public was unethical and should be stopped. Someone could even get hurt. These naysayers were labeled narrow and elitist. Meanwhile, everyone enjoyed their sugar water and felt better.

Ryan,

My experience has been that the "inclusivist" have said that I was "narrow and exclusive" for believing that Christ is the only true way and the light and the life.

To me that "sugar water" metaphor is indeed sweet.

"Narrow is the way"

I think we may be jumping to conclusions here. The Seventh Day Adventist Church is not trying to tell us what to say and how to say it. If someone cognitively comes up with the gospel, they can use it. Share Him which Bob Folkenberg now is part of encourages you to use the "Truth For Today" Sermon series the first time you go then you are free to use any set you want, even make up your own. This would not be done often simply for the fact that it takes a lot of time to make your own sermons and slides to go with it.

Daneen, I have a similar experience with my peer group that you described. My closest friends are part of my home schooling group (I home school our children). It is an inclusive group meaning that there is no faith requirement to join. By and large it is a well-educated group and the members all deeply value learning. Liberal Christians are the most predominate followed closely by pagan and atheist. There is a sprinkling of Buddhist and Unitarian thrown in for good measure. We all get along very well and talk often of our beliefs. We Christians are tolerated because we have adopted a humble attitude that listens and does not assume that we have the answers. It has been very eye-opening to me to see how God works in the lives of these people. They are not searching for Christian doctrine and any attempt on my part to show them the error of their ways would not be welcome to say the least. The non-Christians to a one have a very negative impression of Christianity as arrogant and exclusive. My witness is my life and I try very hard to model Jesus' love and compassion. It can be a very disconcerting though when the agnostic Buddhist next to you is doing a better job at it LOL.

In a recent Review article, Monte Sahlin said that the action that was most influential in growing a church was active church participation in the local community. This instantly gives name recognition, but better yet, demonstrates that the church is part of the community that is involved in local organizations that help people. Too often, the church has hidden away in its isolated enclave and contributes to overseas work rather than making a visible contribution within its local area.

First, it seems to me that much of the criticism of this form of spreading the Gospel stems from the dislike of Robert Folkenberg. I don't know exactly what happened when he was in the office of President of the General Conference. Did he make mistakes, that much is pretty certain. But he didn't fight to keep his position. From my understanding (which can be incomplete and imperfect), he stepped down to avoid further embarrasing the church. Furthermore, I met Elder Folkenberg on a ShareHim trip 5 years ago. We were headed to Cuba to conduct campaigns and everyone flew to Cancun to catch a chartered flight into Cuba. Even though there were ordained ministers and people he knew personally, he spent 15 minutes talking to me. If his interest in what I had to say during that fifteen minutes was an act, the man should be given TWO Academy Awards!!

Second, has any of those who speak critically of ShareHim ever been on one of their campaigns? The reason the scripts are "canned" is two-fold. One, ShareHim is trying to get the average layperson to get out and fullfil the Gospel commission to preach the Gospel to all the world. Second, there is a unified theme and the same Gospel is preached. A corollary thought is that after seeing success in the mission field, the person will go home and continue some kind of ministry in their local area. We need to get more people involved in the work of ministry. Is there a need for training? Yes, there is. Two days are spent as a large group with ShareHim preparing the person for what they will encounter. Then for at least a couple hours every day, a trained facilitator goes over the material in their individual group. It isn't perfect, but nothing on this earth is.

Finally, if the ShareHim is an inferior tool for spreading the Gospel, instead of complaining about it and come up with something better.

Alex,

Only on Spectrum will you find people complaining & judging others; even when it means that souls are coming to Jesus.

Have any of the nay-sayers on this blog led someone to Jesus (let alone the SDA message)? I think we should win some souls for Jesus before we earn the right to criticize others for putting forth the effort.

Those young people may be using Mark Finley's notes, but last time I remember, the notes were mostly BIBLE REFERENCES & TEXTS!

These meetings are motivating the local congregations to befriend their community and extensive effort in both pre-work and post-work is being expended by the local churches. This is a work of unification amongst Christian brothers and sisters around the world.

Now for my personal TESTIMONY:

Alex, not only did preaching this event myself 3 years ago in a small town in Pennsylvania, change my life...MY WHOLE FAMILY (me, 2 brothers, 2 sisters, mother, now-pastor-father, grandmother, wife, etc.) WOULD HAVE NEVER HAVE BECOME CHRISTIANS WOULD IT NOT HAVE BEEN FOR SOMEONE GETTING OUT OF THEIR COMFORT ZONE TO USE A "COOKIE-CUTTER" EVANGELISTIC METHOD. My family joined the Adventist Church because of one of these evangelistic series. We were more than just a number to those loving people that welcomed us into the gospel of Jesus Christ!

In Conclusion:

If God can speak Truth through a Donkey, I think He could use us too. It is ultimately about God working through us and us speaking the Truth as found in the Bible!

Happy Sabbath everyone! Remember to keep it holy, not because Mark Finely's notes say so, but because Jesus wrote it on tables of stone and on our hearts (they just happened to be referenced in Mark Finely's notes) :)

Jason

P.S. -- That was an awesome video from ERC!! Young people that are just as excited for Jesus as most Americans are about money?! Truly we are living in the last days! Praise the Lord for young people enthusiastic for Jesus!!

Jim--I am certainly not a qualified voice on this subject, but my personal experience of "Folkenbergism" came during my senior year at Pacific Union College when, as a student journalist, I interviewed him as part of an in-depth piece on his "Total Commitment to God" proposal, which was very well-meant but targeted colleges and universities in an attempt to make sure doctrine was being taught according to acceptable and official standards. He advocated an accountability process that would survey students about their spiritual experiences after classes (think No Child Left Behind but with religion questions). Here's an old story (not mine) about it:
http://www.atoday.com/magazine/1997/01/tensions-peak-adventist-higher-ed...

Many perceived this as an attempt to do just what this thread has reacted to--come up with a one-size-fits-all approach to being an Adventist Christian and take back control of (perceived) wayward theology departments to make sure students were coming out sure of their Adventist identity and orthodoxy.

I strongly opposed this as a student as did many faculty members, and not just because it seemed 1984-ish, but also because it seems like bad teaching and bad religion. Now that I've had a decade to grow since college, I've realized ever more how shallow this idea was--most of my life-transforming and faith-affirming experiences started as doubt and disruption (you said what? you mean we don't know what? you mean there's a flood story older than the Bible's?). If teachers were forced to "teach to the accountability survey", I can only imagine how shallow my classes would have been.

I'm not speaking for anyone else on this thread, just my own hackles that get raised when this topic comes up!

After reading the linked article of Folkenberg's proposal for gauging "spiritual commitment," it begs the question:
How does one quantify or measure spiritual commitment? Who designs the measuring tools? Is it another attempt to measure "success" in the spiritual life? If so, count me out.

Those were exactly the very excellent questions raised, Elaine, and (luckily, I think) the proposal was never implemented.

Hi Beth,

I do believe we should rejoice at the "secular inclusivity" we have in the US. But I can't accept "religious inclusivity" any more than those "exclusive" Jewish boys did in Daniel 3:12.

If one is ever truly touched by the Holy Spirit of ones own self righteousness,unholiness and unlovingness then it is my belief that the trip to the foot of will indeed be sweet and "good news."

If we try to "outlove" someone we never end up pointing them to the true lover Christ who while we were yet sinners died for us. I've met many kind Buddhist, Hindu's even a few Sunni Muslems while in Bangladesh but none of them could qualify to be my savior because they are yet sinners.

Regards.

PS. And while there is yet sin in the world there is NO LASTING PEACE...even if I envision it.

I think Alex has correctly characterized much of Adventist evangelism. Until the focus is on the well being of those being "witnessed to" instead of the witnessers or the witnessers' brand of theology I think we are incompletely carrying out the gospel commission at best and, more likely, disrespectful of our fellow travelers. Experiences that tear down our fences and increase our awareness of the human condition in all its forms are desirable and may be the responsibility of the church as well as the individual. But this is not responsible evangelism. And calling it such is self-centered.
At a WWU Theology Dept presentation on evangelism about a year ago I asked one of the guest presenters who has spent much of his life in the mission field why we have such a focus on evangelism in the Adventist church. He said, because it improves people's lives. Well, that reason is hard to argue with. I thought it was to guarantee the continued existence of the church, to spread the gospel so the end could come, to insure the tithe base, to give our youth mission trips to go on. But improving people's lives....wow, I can get behind that idea. Wait a minute, something isn't connecting here. Did the 2300 day charts that I grew up with improve someone's life? The Revelation Seminars? The prayer meetings held in preparation for the "upcoming evangelistic series?" The sheep stealing of an older generation?
Personally I'm not called to the gospel commission. I leave that to others. (I'm called to Mt. 25:35; "For I was hungry and you gave me.....") But I am a Seventh Day Adventist and call myself a Christian and I too am concerned when the practices of this church and this faith are disrespectful of members of my community in their evangelism. I'm thinking that as we need to be culturally sensitive in our world we also need to be faith-tradition sensitive which means becoming literate in the world religions and respecting their adherents enough to say let me improve your life without changing your belief system. Respectful enough of them to say to them, tell me how I can help improve your life instead of just doing the thing I think they need.
One of my favorite books is The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell. It really helped me to see evangelism and do-gooding in a different way. As privileged people and Christians we have a tremendous responsibility to not just do what works best, but to get it as right as possible. We are talking about individual's lives, not just numbers.

Jim, the point that I've been trying to make is that this kind of program isn't the gospel. The minute you put your hands on the narrative to pull timeless principles from it that can be packaged and sold as a commodity, you don't have the gospel anymore, you have something else. In fact, maybe what you get is exactly the kind of syncretism that some on this thread are worried about. Only this kind of syncretism is composed of the Christian narrative and a kind of post-Enlightenment, capitalist worldview.

Ryan,
"Only this kind of syncretism is composed of the Christian narrative and a kind of post-Enlightenment, capitalist worldview."

Wow, Where did that come from?

Alex--your thoughts on why you stayed when so many of your fellow student-preacher evangelists didn't intrigue me. Will you elaborate more on what you mean by this? I'm asking from a place of longing to find my reasons to stay.

"Why have I stayed? In part, because of the all-too-rare kismet of having professors, books, friends, and cultural experiences teaching me that Truth is not only private comfort but also a habit for action. And that I find my Truth and my community align satisfyingly with my private existential haunts and my ethical ideals for humanity."

And Pat, where did you get the idea from Beth's post that she was looking for a savior among her Buddhist/non-religious peers in her home school group? I didn't sense that at all--just a realization that we can learn too, not just share.

Ryan,
I don't know if your "snake oil" story was directed at my comment or not, but if so I will respond. I was not saying that analyzing or even criticism of these events was unwarranted or unacceptable. I was simply trying to make the point that good things have come-out of these events, and the tenor of the conversation I felt was saying nothing good could or would come out of them. Also, if the story was implying that all the healing that occurs from such meetings is temporary then again I would have to disagree. I believe the Word is more powerful than the method; this doesn't mean that the we should abandon all attempts to correct our wrongs and improve upon broken ways, but to simply cast them off as magic potions that don't really bring life change puts the method over the Word and I don't want to do that.
"As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."
Isaiah 55:9-11

"The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."
Philippians 1:17, 18

Whether it is the methods I like or not; I admit there are lives that are changed, because ultimately the Word is the most powerful thing! That doesn't mean stick your head in the sand, it just means the results and those involved may still be sincere and from God.

Anon-
"And Pat, where did you get the idea from Beth's post that she was looking for a savior among her Buddhist/non-religious peers in her home school group? I didn't sense that at all--just a realization that we can learn too, not just share."

I didn't suggest she was...those were my observations of the only place where "I found one." Perhaps you can paste me where I suggested "she was."

Ryan, I do see your point. There is the danger of this program being packaged and sold as a commodity, but I disgree when you say it isn't the gospel.

I can't judge the intention of ERC, I don't know the people behind it. And I can't judge the motives of the people at ShareHim, even though I've met Folkenberg and the short time I spent with him was a refreshing change from some other officials or ex-officials I have spent with the Church.

But what I can judge is my own experience. I have seen lives changed from both sides of the experience. When I went to Cuba with ShareHim in 2002, one of the ladies that came was a teacher in one of the schools. She was a member of the Communist Party and an atheist. A neighbor of hers was a member of the Church and asked me to visit her. I went and visited and she was so impressed that I came to see her, she started attending the meetings. She was eventually baptized and today, she is STILL an active member of the Church who is winning souls for Jesus Christ in Camaguey, Cuba. Her neighbor had tried for years to share Jesus with her, but to no avail.
On the other side, I went to Africa with ShareHim in 2007 and had the privilege of working with a young lady who had just finished her freshman year at Southern (of all places) and had never gotten up in front of people before. Because she was SO nervous, she was given a site across the street from Kendu Adventist Hospital. The area is heavily Adventist and the leaders mainly wanted the series as a revival. At the end of the series, 30 people accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior. This young lady was so impressed with how the Lord moved that she has decided to dedicate her life to God in mission work.
I fail to see where this isn't the Gospel. Are there some things in the program that may not be the best? I'm sure there probably are. Are there less than perfect men and women involved? Of course, all have fallen short of the Glory of God. But as the old saying goes; Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater!

I have always been disturbed by what I perceived in Adventism as microscopic thinking. We often fall into the trap of emphasizing certain things without looking at the "big picture." For example, evangelizing and "soul-winning" often get front and center treatment in our faith community. However, Paul in Romans 12 clearly states that we all have different gifts and abilities. If I'm reading those scriptures correctly, then Paul places things like encouraging, giving, and showing mercy on equal footing with things like prophesying and teaching. If we are to edify the body of Christ, then we would do well to encourage a more complete and holistic view of our mission as Christians.

That being said, I think there is a place in Adventism for programs like ShareHim and the ERC. I just feel they need to be a part of a whole, along the lines of previous posts calling for the need to utilize other creative/artistic/ethical/life-living ways to reach others.

I also believe in the concept of divine multiplication, in that God doesn't necessarily need us to do His work. He affords us the opportunity to work with Him so that we can see His power and that affects us from within. I like to call it multiplication because God takes whatever we give, even our imperfect cookie-cutter methods, and multiplies it and uses it for His glory. Think of Jesus receiving five loaves and two fish, a meager amount, and multiplying it to feed thousands. Maybe we should look at our evangelistic efforts in that way as well.

I once was having some difficulties as a pastor with some church members and the conference ministerial director (now a conference president) decided he needed to get involved. In one "counseling" session in my home he told me that if I had more baptisms I wouldn't be having these problems.

I told him that I knew how to get more baptisms; that I had also gone through the Seminary and knew the tricks to "help" people make a decision to be baptized, but that I wouldn't use them; that it was the Holy Spirit's job to bring people to conviction and that if He hadn't done His job, I wasn't going to do it for Him (sorry for the masculine pronoun ladies. No offense intended). He (the ministerial director) was not impressed with my response and he continues to focus on numbers to this day, although he claims the numbers are important because they represent "precious souls" brought into the kingdom (but he doesn't know diddly about most of these souls as individuals.)

Anyway, Alex, all I can say about your original post is Amen, Amen, and Amen!

Elaine,

I can tell you how to gauge spirituality, at least among pastors. The same ministerial director I mentioned in a previous post told me that pastors who always pray and read Scripture when visiting people are spiritual. Those who don't aren't.

Posted with tongue firmly planted in my cheek!

I have seen the results of this type of evangelism (following someone else’s sermon outline) when done in countries outside the U.S. and, though it is seldom if ever perfect, the results have been astounding. For the most part both parties, the willing and eager participants and many of the huge crowds of hungry and soul-searching people, have left with their lives changed. To cast dispersion on any outreach that is bringing this many to know a personal Savior is, in my humble opinion, being unrealistic. No matter how deficient you may find it, you can’t argue with this kind of success, especially when you consider the value Christ placed on each soul with His own sacrifice. I think we need to beware of criticizing any evangelism which is done by willing participants and that brings joy, happiness and salvation to so many for whom Christ died.

The only portion of the SAU YouTube video that I felt very uncomfortable with was the implied assumption that everyone should participate in this particular outreach. That simply is not true. God gives each of us different talents for a reason, so that together we can reach out to everyone. Any indication that all students (Christians?) need to reach out using the same tool is counter to what the Bible teaches. But, the effects of these outreach series overseas has been nothing short of phenomenal. No matter how flawed, I believe their genuine efforts to touch the lives of others is being used by God for the benefit of good both in this life and the next.

In almost the same breath I must also admit I have become increasingly disturbed and aggravated at the conference-mandated evangelistic series imposed upon the pastors in our conference. (This practice may extend to other conferences or even countries, but my personal experience leaves me only able to reference this part of the world.) Part of my struggles may come from a feeling of obligation to support our poor pastor who, despite spending a lot of time and money on comprehensive advertising, has still ended up with few, if any, non-SDAs. This in turn translates into few, if any, additions to our church (outside of a few youth whose families are already members.) I am using numbers as a reference since I’m not sure how else to quantify the good done per dollar spent. Don’t get me wrong. I place no limiting monetary value on a soul, certainly no comparison to the cost of holding the evangelistic series. That is not the point.

I do, however, believe in good stewardship. There can be a convincing, driving force behind a congregation-initiated outreach. The same amount of money spent can quite possibly have results that reach many times over the number of hearts and lives affected for good than did the amount spent on an evangelistic series. You could also feasibly see a huge increase in the number of church member participants. And, you can definitely see the difference in their level of excitement.

I’ve witnessed this in one of our local churches. This past December their members put on a “Journey to Bethlehem”. It was comprised of an outdoor walk to and through the town of Bethlehem. We passed merchants selling their wares, Roman guards, a tax collector’s booth, even a camel trader with a real camel before joining with the wise men and shepherd’s to travel to find Mary, Joseph and the Baby Jesus. It went for 3 very cold evenings over one weekend, but the total attendance was nearly 3,000! The church members loved putting it on and many from the community begged them to do it again next year. A huge number of members were enthusiastically involved in building the sets, sewing the clothing and a myriad of other jobs. Now they are talking of maybe doing something on Easter weekend. From what I understand this brought more new people to their church than all their past evangelistic meetings put together.

Well, I’ve given one suggestion. Now I would like to see this blog used to come up with other new, innovative ways to meet the needs and longings of a harried and exhausted American public, maybe something besides asking them to add yet one more long series of meetings to their already bulging itineraries. We need ideas that will resonate with them in their personal lives. Personally, I believe that needs to start with friendships and with caring for others needs, something that requires time. That was, incidentally, Christ’s method while here on earth.

And….who knows….maybe I could even get excited about a grass-roots evangelistic series. I really don’t know. Hmmm…is there a chance that members up front, who may not be refined preachers, but who are genuine in telling their own stories could possibly end up being incredibly interesting to me?? OK, lets hear some other ideas. We can talk all day about what doesn’t work. Let’s figure out some ideas for outreach that WILL WORK!

I just read this in an issue of Rev! magazine and have to share it. It's titled "12 Common Myths About Outreach."

1. Evangelism is the "organized" church's job.

2. When people say "outreach," they're all talking about the same thing.

3. Canned approaches still work well.

4. Armed with ample apologetics, we can convince people to believe in Christ.

5. Church mission statements are effective.

6. Revival services and camp meetings are still productive means of outreach.

7. Church marketing with slick ads and postcards is sufficient to gain new members.

8. A growing church is a sign of effective evangelism.

9. Attraction events are sufficient to introduce people to Christ.

10. Confrontational evangelism is effective; more Christians should implement it.

11. Altar calls at the end of church services are the primary way that people make decisions for Christ.

12. if people are attending church, it's fair to assume they have a deep relationship with Christ.

The issue also has a chart of evangelism "success" going from cold to hot -

Cold: "turn or burn;" confront people with the truth

Cool: We've discovered the truth; let's convince "them."

Warm: We have something we think "they'll" want; warm them up slowly.

Hot: I'm here for you; experience the difference in my life that God makes.

WDYT?

Did you watch the bottom of the ERC promo video? The combination of the Gospel's power and the students' efforts have led more than 7000 people to baptism! Praise the Lord!It is evident that most of the participating students are not Theology majors. I agree with the concept that even though someone may not have evangelism as his/her primary spiritual gift, he/she should "do the work of an evangelist" anyway! Stop criticizing the ERC for giving young people a viable opportunity to do something for the Lord, something that most pastors in America [and many writers in this blog] have never done in their lives!

I'm not convinced that evangelism corrupts Adventism as much as indicates a corrupt system. There is good reason for most Adventists to be entirely unmotivated to "convert" others--in their hearts they don't believe much of it themselves, why should they try to convince others to join them?

I am no longer Adventist, but I can think of so many examples as illustration. I'll give just a couple.

I was a young teacher in an Adventist school in the south. The white church (conference office church, actually) conducted an "effort," and the evangelist baptised over 200, including children down to 8 years old (got the numbers up, didn't it?). He didn't mind slamming the Seminary in his sermons. And after the baptism, someone in the church "invited" the African-Americans to attend the black church across town. Corrupt?

How about the regular preacher in that same church. Told lies and made up "facts" in his sermons (I used to check at the library) to "prove" his point. Corrupt? From that time on, I have seen politicians and preachers as essentially cut from the same cloth--don't tell the truth, tell the people what they want to hear (Huckabee really scares me, because he's both). Sooner or later, reality has a way of intruding, but it's amazing how many years this can take.

Take the Adventist belief system. Some parts of it (universal Sunday law anyone?) are so ludicrous that it's hard to explain this belief system to people who know nothing about the church with a straight face (they believe what?). Puts church employees in a tight box sometimes, including secret meetings of like-minded individuals for fear of losing their jobs.

Corrupt?

Harvey

As an American who is currently teaching a class in public evangelism at our Adventist College in Thailand (Mission College, not to be confused with the institution mentioned by Alex), I find the discussion fascinating.

I spend a significant portion of the class talking about how to contextualize the Adventist message for this part of the world. Traditional Adventist evangelism doesn't work in Thailand. The beasts of Revelation don't make sense. We're still figuring out what works, but so far public meetings accompanied by community service projects and based on themes like family or a fulfilling life seem to hold the most promise.

The church has been here over 100 years and we have 12,000 members--one Adventist for every 5,610 people by my rough calculation. In the Philippines, not too far from here, there are well over half a million Adventists--at least one for every 167 people. Whatever the complex reasons for these differences I think it is safe to say that traditional methods of evangelism worked better in the Philippines.

Allow me to suggest that ShareHim and similar organizations conduct public evangelistic events in areas where the canned messages ARE culturally relevant. We're 100 years down the road of foreign missions. Somebody HAS spent the time to do the honorable work of theologizing the message. ShareHim doesn't come to places like Thailand. They go to places where their message makes sense. Places like Africa, South/Central America, the Philippines. Perhaps this same approach and message is becoming more and more irrelevant in America as time goes on.

Also, I think the definition of gospel some are promoting here is too narrow. Yes, I do think the Adventist Church needs to embrace the call to social justice that resounds in scripture. Yes, the story of redemption is a narrative. But I think it is a mistake to reduce the traditional Adventist message to a series of propositional truths. The Great Controversy theme provides a unique metanarrative in Adventism that no evangelist worth his salt will ignore. The message that God is ultimately in control of world history and will come again to establish an eternal kingdom (the central message of most of our Adventist prophecy-based evangelistic efforts) is wonderful good news to alot of people all over the world.

Recognizing and honoring the differences in cultures is ultimately of the first importance.

When there are few, very few people today who have any knowledge of what is in the Bible except what they've been taught, it is rather easy to sell them on something as being from the Bible as a guide for the future.

Perhaps that is why it is so difficult here in the U.S. as well as Europe. There are more educated people who have been taught to think critically and are skeptical of hucksters who are attempting to sell them a plan for the future from an ancient book. Bridging the gap between where people are and what the "seller" wants to convince them to accept, is presenting a problem that has not kept up with the pace of the postmodern mind. Still trying to attract people with the same beasts and prophecies is simply not going to cut it. How many of your non-SDA friends would be excited to hear such a lecture, even with power point and video? It just ain't gonna work with anyone I know, nor would it work with me. One must either get someone who has so little diversion in his life that he is ready to attend such a lecture.

As long as I’m finally venturing into the world of online blogging I have one more beef to air. It is over altar calls. I’m a Baby Boomer and I’ve experienced altar calls being misused far more than properly used (although I’m still unsure as to what the proper usage would look like.) I still cringe when I hear the song “All to Jesus I Surrender”. I have even, at times, gotten up and walked out. This has nothing to do with my personal relationship with Christ. It does, however have to do with this song being used repeatedly to coerce people, in a moment of passion, to walk up to the front in a show of giving themselves to Christ.

First, but not foremost, altar calls are usually ambiguous as to whom the pastor or evangelist is really targeting. It is not unusual for the “wrong group” to respond because of the confusion. This often leaves these respondents confused and embarrassed. Secondly, and more importantly, altar calls are often used to try to force the entire group to respond. Pastors/Evangelists, listen up!! When you ask those who want to rededicate their life to Christ to stand up and then you immediately take that group of standing parishioners and then tell them to open their hymnals for the closing song, does it ever dawn on you that you have probably left some very conspicuous “sitters” who now do not know whether to stand, sit or just plain leave?

What if you have a young mother, as I was, who is in the middle of struggling with her anger towards God but who stills comes to church for the sake of her children? Does she stand to save having to explain to her young ones her own inability or unwillingness to completely surrender her life to God at that moment? Or, does she stay seated because, even though she’s angry with God, there’s still a deep respect for Him and she’s not willing to openly lie to others just to save face?

Please, can we come up with some alternatives to this? I’ve seen friends leave the church because they were put into an embarrassing situation such as this. Is this really good for anyone besides the pastor’s/evangelist’s ego? Has anyone done any research as to how long this effect typically lasts in one’s personal life? There’s got to be a better way.

I’ve come to be at peace with my God, but it did not come from any altar call! It took a long time of searching, arguing and trying to figure out how God could fit into my life of pain. Our God can and does wait, even if it takes us years. I still love my SDA church, flaws and all, but we need to continually and diligently work to find better ways to effectively show how wonderful and patient our God really is.

As if I can add to the ocean of thought already expressed above, but here's my two cents:
1) Yeah, there is a lot to say about and a lot of problems with Adventist evangelism...
2) ...but whatever it is Mr. Carpenter is upset about isn't one of them.

I just can't find anything wrong with getting young laypeople excited about sharing their relationship with Jesus, nor do I find fault with how the ECR is doing this. Yes, ok, there are problems with Evangelistic series and measuring their successes. But college students preaching the gospel? Geez, man, I'm all for it. Loosen up, bro! There are far more interesting things to say about this topic as is evident by the thoughtful comments above.

Your comments about cultural relevance, Ryan, hit home with me.

In my culture (San Francisco), I know I connect with the arts (especially film and book events), social justice causes (especially for the those who are traditionally turned away by churches in this town for their sexual orientation), and service projects that help our neighbors and environment--I have a feeling my fellow citizens would connect with these things too. The church group I go to (and it doesn't even bill itself as a church because of what usually comes with that word) emphasizes the above and truly doesn't have an agenda for where my spiritual journey needs to end up or what my life has to start looking like before I'm accepted on a permanent basis. It started with six people two years ago and today there were about 35 present--slow growth, but authentic growth; these are people who know each other beyond smiles and facades. Of course, it's not an "official" church of any denomination (although it does attract many who grew up Adventist) and would die a quick death if it ever had to be accountable to those who fund traditional evangelistic campaigns.

I went through the YOUTUBE bit a second time. Sounded like the Tower of Babel--just a clutter of voices. The best I could get was: "look how young, how clean, how bright eyed, well groomed, how eager/happy I am. You can have all this too if you join Jesus through us."

I bet that not one of the young people there could define or explain the Gospel in 25 words or less. They were talking in "zip code" a new form of "tongues". No wonder Alex is concerned. I attend church for a number of reasons, fellowship, sharing, but primarily to be fed! Blessed Assurance! These guys couldn't even sell diet pills.

If God is waiting for the Gospel to get into all the world--these "sound bite spins" won't bring Him any closer. Tom

If I'm not mistaken this promotional video from SAU is about short-term student evangelistic missions abroad. Their target audience, by and large, are those residing anywhere outside the USA/North America. A couple of questions pop out in my mind: 1) Should we not expect a university-based evangelism resource center, headed by academics with mission experience, to do better than a conference evangelism department? 2) Must the standard we use to measure short-term missions, evangelistic or otherwise, be lower than for those who engage in long-term ones so we may not hold the former accountable to the same degree as the latter?

My part of the world is evidently one of the favorite destinations of the outreach activities by students and faculty from the USA/North America. Is traditional public evangelism in the Philippines or Thailand effective or not? The answer, I believe, depends on what is meant by "traditional"? Traditional in the sense that evangelists from the west/North America use the term in connection with their short-term reaping crusades abroad and/or their homeland? Or traditional from the point of view of their indigenous evangelist counterparts?

While religion presumably deals with our spiritual nature it is or should also be socially integrative. In point of fact, when we evangelize and convert people from one religion to another we're asking them to transfer allegiance from a familiar, traditional culture to something new. Relatively new, that is. There's the difference between Adventist member recruitment in the Philippines from those in Thailand. What works and what doesn't work in the Philippines and/or Thailand? The population in the Philippines is more than 80% Roman Catholic. Thailand is inhabited mostly by Buddhists. While the Philippines was a Spanish colony for more than 300 years, plus 50 years under US-American occupation, Thailand was never under foreign-western domination. While conversion to Adventism in the Philippines is mostly among nominal Christians, still the same entails much diligent work and painstaking follow-up. Sadly, what people from the west know is mostly news that are published for their own consumption and for the promotion of the same by their own mission representatives. May I voice the obvious regarding what has been taken for granted as an imperialistic approach to evangelism abroad?

What else is new?

First, the annual growth rate has not changed significantly from year to year regardless of the number of public evangelistic missions from abroad.

Second, the difference between the annual accession and growth rates in the 3 Philippine unions from 1995 thru 2005 translates into dropped and missing members. In light of the more than half a million baptized adult SDA members in the islands, converting the percentage of lost members to actual figures, or vice-versa, on a yearly average staggers the imagination. Does it touch our spirits to the core such that we resolve to do whatever is needed to correct the discrepancy, as the Spirit leads?

http://www.adventiststatistics.org/view_Summary.asp?FieldID=D_SSD

Note the adjustments resulting in negative growth (decline!) for two years prior to the 2005 GC session.

South Philippine Union Conference

Growth Rate
6.01% 5.73% 4.13% 5.23% 6.32% 6.66% 5.57% 2.65% 3.43% -7.52% -47.03%
Accession Rate
6.26% 7.49% 5.45% 5.59% 6.98% 7.28% 6.66% 4.14% 4.63% 4.10% 4.21%

Central Philippine Union Conference

Growth Rate
4.47% 5.44% 2.23% 2.80% 2.79% 5.21% 3.57% -6.38% -23.63% -25.30% 7.14%
Accession Rate
4.94% 6.20% 3.82% 4.26% 6.15% 5.85% 4.96% 4.21% 4.87% 5.25% 7.93%

North Philippine Union Mission

Growth Rate
5.23% 6.08% 4.82% 5.37% 6.42% 6.52% 4.68% 6.30% -17.36% -6.99% -15.76%
Accession Rate
6.20% 6.98% 5.47% 6.08% 7.08% 7.01% 5.21% 7.19% 4.32% 7.21% 7.81%

Since there is also an on-going conversation in another thread about the Central California Conference, let me post for those interested the link to the NAD and CCC stats respectively. Deaths consist of less than 1% annually in each of the local conferences and unions. Transfers in and out balance each other. Just even, IOW. The difference between accession and actual growth is what really matters. This translates to dropped and missing members in each of the NAD unions and local conference such as the CCC.
http://www.adventiststatistics.org/view_Summary.asp?FieldID=D_NAD
http://www.adventiststatistics.org/view_Summary.asp?FieldInstID=742864

Thanks Joselito

While at Loma Linda I conducted a three week mission trip of medical, dental, nursing, and allied health students and faculty to the State of Chiapas, Mexico. We accomplished a lot of critical care medicine high in coffee country. The best result we had was in the career development of the students who made the trip.

Of Course we would brag about 7,000 teeth extracted, one to three babies delivered, snake bite therapy, even a cholera epidemic stopped. Now that part of Mexico is Castro country. (We attribute that to the pastor who tagged along and preached on the Second Coming and the time of trouble with a explosive eruption to simulate the H. Bomb.)

What turned my off on the YouTube piece was the babble and the bragging. It seemed content free. Tom

I regularly log onto the Spectrum Site for its resources and to see what currents are flowing in the SDA mainstream, but was most offended and dismayed by this posting, which obviously received prime posting and has generated great interest. I would not have seen the video had you not posted it!

In short: this piece of work is comparable to the response of the scribes to the events of Pentecost: That these untrained fishermen would want to pontificate about the complexity of the Jewish Messiah, and even proclaim that a condemned man was God can only foment more problems with the impressionable people. Just leave the preaching to the fully trained, qualified Rabbis and keep quiet. Why should our youth not for a change be targeted by a real challenge? Are we so jaded that we ignore the promise of Jude that “your young men will dream dreams” or go out and preach messages? Did Ellen White have the necessary Theological credentials?

Yes indeed, let’s rather opt for the same old complacency. Let’s not get our youth to experience the sense of personal unworthiness of taking this great responsibility, nor let us have them experience the thrill of seeing how the Holy Spirit can work through their bungling efforts. Perhaps more of us should be reading John Ortberg’s “When you want to walk on water you have to step out of the boat” to get out of the pious and snide criticism of some of the really useful things being done…

The concluding message about numbers is probably quite offensive to some, much like the accounting of the numbers who joined the church after Pentecost…. Shame on those head counters who kept statistics about “quick saved results.” Does the Gospel Commission not enjoin us to teach to obey AND to baptize? Some may be doing the work for personal selfish reasons, psychological manipulation or worse, but the fact remains, the Word is being spread, and these folks are actually going out and doing something, or being