I feel you frustration. I also expect there is no way to stop this mad march. We will finish the work and Jesus will have to return. Never mind that the given scenario of his coming will be a cataclysmic and complete end to any reality we know.

A while back I believe it was Dave Larson that suggested chooing not to support some of these events.

Sorry, I must disagree.
"is this a wise investment, i.e., do the benefits outweigh the costs?"

Christ would have come and died for just 1 person. But he wasn’t as frugal as we are I guess.

The 3 different snippets of video are ineffective proof of the relative worth and/or abilities of the different pastors.

"what exactly does this cLAim effort offer? Fundamentally, it should be about a relationship with God."
And somehow this doesn’t? Lots of prework in relationship building and lay ministry go into this. I get the impression you are not familiar with the concept planned.
The seminars are graduation events if done correctly. Only a tiny few will come from the mailings and radio spots and probably TV too. But who can put a worth on an unchurched person’s soul? In the end it is an excuse to execute a coordinated focused networked approach to soul winning. Many lay people will work towards a coordinated lofty goal that would not do anything on a personal basis in their local church. I am sure you can understand that concept.
"Southern California Conference Adventists are not happy with the arbitrary divisions of the city for this and the old school media approach."
Really? Can you envision any conceivable division as appealing to everyone? As to the old school media approach, SCC could have come up with their own plan for years but they didn’t. If they discovered a effective way to improve I’m sure it would be adopted. Success has many fathers right?
"It is Written just completed a series in Portland on Revelation. Really, in this day and age?"
Yes, Many people can’t remember that what interests them isn’t the same for others. No one said the Portland program was perfect or was effective for EVERY unchurched person. Why do you try and make it seem like it was a failure and that it claimed to be a perfect solution??
"Sure plenty of Adventists will attend and "hundreds" will be baptized, but official General Conference stats show that almost half of them will drop out within a year."

Oh, you’re right. Why even try? Do you blame the drop outs on Boonstra too?
New members need new relationships with God but also with other Christians. Research shows existing members and their friendliness and acceptance or lack of it is most responsible for the attrition you speak of. That is why their is lay ministry and relationship development prior to these events.

"I have no animosity toward this sort of evangelism or It is Written itself, but shouldn't the church look for the best use - effectiveness and thoughtfulness - of its constituents' time and money?"
I don’t really perceive that attitude in your writing. Perhaps I am mistaken, but, If you do believe in the efficiency aspects, why wasn’t the article about an alternative evangelistic strategy you proposed? Don’t you have one? You just said call them up and tell them to stop it.

As to your second point. I am not sure becoming an activist going and protesting something is a viable large scale model for church growth.(Yes I recognize that local church is also more than that.)
And "reconnecting" as a conference or union wide focus is flawed too.
We would all welcome these people back in church, but as a Focus? I heard the concept described one time as spinning plate evangelism.
You put a plate on a stick and start it spinning and continue on and on. At some point you have no time to start any more plates spinning because you are too focused on every plate starting to wobble.

This concept is contrary the great commission. God doesn’t come when everyone is baptized SDA. He comes when everyone has heard the "Good News".
The lost sheep in the parable were not former SDA's. They are the unchurched.
It would be best to acknowledge some people make their connection with the church ala Hollywood SDA, Some reclaimed by reconnecting, but yes also through proclaiming the good news and all the relationship building lay ministry that precedes it.
And yes, sometimes people need an event or plan to gather together to make a critical mass impact in an area.

And yes you can still prove them "wrong" by comming up with a better plan and actually execute it instead of lobbing figurative pebbles at those who are trying.

After having preached in Daniel and Revelation seminars in Washington State (while in high school), done a summer of bible work with Andrews University's field school of evangelism in Michigan, preached and done Bible work for three weeks in the Philippines, and led summer literature evangelism for six summers for the Central California Conference, in addition to participating in Bible Working courses and attending several evangelistic series growing up, I am actually quite familiar with how these things work, Michael. : )

And the fact is that this is a broken model. It is propped up by continually exaggerated numbers. I've sat in the car with Mark Finley listening to the conference paper official try to get the PR right.

True, the videos are not whole stories, but I post them to compare their viewership. I posted the most watched Boonstra video. It has 71 views. The McLaren has over 12 thousand and the Bell as 57,584.

Now I can already hear the backslapping refrain about hard truths being unpopular, but the truth is that they are all preaching a grace-filled, Bible-based message. As McLuhan said, the medium or method is the message. They are just sitting on the web. If you want a critical mass event, volunteer viewership has gotta tell us something about appeal.

Anyone is free to fork over their tithes and offerings to save one soul - I'm merely suggesting that some of us would like a return of five or even ten talents instead of digging up that one, when the Master returns.

It's called investing our talents wisely. I believe that the idea comes from Jesus (Matt 25:14-30).

Feel free to watch the several hours of almost unwatched video of Mr. Boonstra. Check the viewer numbers yourself. I'm just not clear why we need to pay a million dollars for something that no one is watching for free.

http://www.youtube.com/user/itiswritten

Back when you did them, the lay prep work was often forgotten. The culture was bring in the evangelist so we wont have to do any work our selves.
You obviously have experience but things are done a little more diffrently than you remember now days. Some the same of course. But, my evangelistic experience is not in CA. My family lives down there so I am generally familiar since they are in the ministry. I wont tell you how high up.

I'll be looking for your next evangelistic series then when you show them how its done.

I really hope you do find something that works well in CA.
Do you plan to participate in the event anyway and develop some relationships so the attrition rate will be less?

I think you have this one in reverse.
"I'm merely suggesting that some of us would like a return of five or even ten talents instead of digging up that one when the Master returns."

Its the people who are out doing something that have the talents invested and the ones who have it buried are the ones who are afraid of spending theirs.

As long as the Adventist Church continues to believe that "The Good News" is Daniel and Revelation, they will remain mired in high attrition and dismal retention.

Why can they not see that the "Good News" is not apocalyptic fear mongering, and the "three angels message".

If you want to bring people to a saving relationship with Christ, how about a Month long "Crusade" on the books of Romans and Galatians.

When the SDA Church finally decides it is to bring people to Christ, instead of converting people to Adventism, the floodgates of heaven will open. It is Christ and Him sacificed, that is the Good News, not the Adventist apocalyptic paradigm.

Sighingly,

Randy

The SCC has such a varied constituency which immediately begs to question if a predominantly English-language campaign is the best use of our funds. Not only is the wider culture no longer monolithic, neither are our churches. From the way we worship to cultural and economic differences right out of the starting gate the very idea of cLAim is hobbled.

Better than a single bidder contract (when voting it was an up or down vote) perhaps would be to allow local churches to present their own ideas and receive grants. The option presented then, and the option being suggested by some in this discussion, is that a vote for Boonstra is a vote for evangelism and the suggestion that we could do better is a vote against evangelism.

Nothing could be further from the truth. And I speak to you as someone who was present at the SCC pastors meeting where Boonstra was introduced (to polite, muted and prompted applause), who has seen the huge challenges of ministry in Los Angeles first hand and greatly appreciates the ministry of the extremely hard working pastors who I worked for and met and who, I can guarantee to you, have no talents buried away.

Is our imagination really so limited that our evangelism cannot account for the varieties of religious experience in our churches? These funds, is their source external to the SCC?

However what It Is Written is offering with cLAim is in my opinion narrowly tailored template evangelism and that such an approach just doesn't fit the needs of Los Angeles which is one of Americas most diverse cities.

No, I think that good stewardship requires us to spend wisely. cLAim is not a difficult choice to make as an administrator. The alternative, which would be to empower our pastors to enact whichever form of evangelism works best in their community, takes a lot more work. The truth is that relevant evangelisms are as varied as the people who evangelise or are evangelised to.

One approach is not enough. We need many, not one, 'evangelism' for Los Angeles. Honestly this is a huge waste of money which would be far more effective if spent on several, not one, effort over a longer period of time than 3 or so years. This isn't even a criticism of Shawn Boonstra himself.

I do think it's wrong to oppose It Is Written, and I don't, existing or working in Los Angeles. I just don't think one single campaign is the best use of $1,000,000.00. If people really want Boonstra then fine- I don't see a problem with that. Let's give Boonstra part of that $1,000,000.00 and the rest to local pastors. They, believe it or not, do know what works in their communities and are able to implement, if properly supported, efforts which can work. After all isn't that what being a good steward is about?

I am fascinated with the discussion.

We recently had an LA based Evangelist wanting to cLaim London with a budget of $6,000,000! (Including the use of some LA$$)

I did take the view that he should sort his own patch out first. Maybe that's what is going on. Help, I want to know what he would do with the change.

But seriously, stick to the efficacy of the program.

We can use stewardship to beat up on any issue. The rest of the world thinks that a lot of what happens in that corner of the world is profligate, but in fairness you do pay for it.

If you focus on the money you deserve to one day run face to face with the person who will say if it had not been for that meeting I would not be alive now. Then to maintain your stance you will have to tell the person their life was not worth it.

A bigger problem in my view is the continued belief that we, SDAs, are in this battle alone, and we alone must warn the world about the impending return of Jesus.

Since moving to live temporarily in southern Cal I've witnessed the kind of televangelism-based format that the conference has promoted and that has been implemented several times each year in a number of local congregations. So far, I have yet to see the difference it makes in terms of results that may have been better than what I'd already seen in my home division (same as the SCC treasurer but from a different country). To be honest, I'm getting the distinct impression, and I may be mistaken, that those who plan this mass outreach programs are actually banking mainly on the support of immigrant/ethnic congregations and/or those that have a significant number of ethnic membership. The problem is, I think and just my opinion, our method doesn't seem to reach the kinds (more specifically the social classes) of unchurched immigrant population, at least from my home division, that have moved here. Food for thought!

Here's some stats for the particular conference on the dock:-)

Southern California Conference Ending Membership
1996 - 50,326
2006 - 42,688

Annual Net Growth [1996-2006] Total gains less Total losses
646 207 -656 -352 -5 87 -17 -1,829 -3,529 -516 -1,028

Growth Rate
1.30% 0.41% -1.30% -0.71% -0.01% 0.18% -0.03% -3.69% -7.39% -1.17% -2.35%

Accession Rate
4.12% 4.06% 3.32% 3.61% 3.79% 3.28% 3.58% 3.67% 3.43% 3.49% 3.58%

Ordained Ministers
148 148 150 157 154 147 145 139 134 128 119
Licensed Ministers
16 13 15 16 26 30 15 18 20 17 18

BTW, I've been attending a 3 sessions-a-week series for members, now in its third week, of studies on the Sanctuary by a retired interim pastor in a traditionally white congregation with a significant multiethnic membership near my home. As far as I can tell, the response from all the different groups has been enthusiastic and very positive.

It feels like it is time to hear the line about insanity being a person repeating the same activity over and over again yet expecting the same results.
In my mighty opinion, most Americans could care less what you have to say unless they think you genuinely like them. As long as people are objects for our satchel of numbers & statistics, we can expect more of the same in this country. Why is it so hard for us Adventists to actually love people, no strings attached, and not feel like 'it doesn't count' unless we weasel in a "Desire of Ages".
Big-Programs like this feel steeped in pride to me & I have a hard time not being embarrassed of my church for them.

Bless you Joselito for your continuing efforts. Your post is an encoragement to me.

Johnny brings up some of the best discussion ideas. What you say is completely true about the English oriented campaign, a very valid point concerning the efficacy of the effort.
That group also is less able to avail its self of internet video. 
We also recognize that many of the ethnic groups are coming from a more orthodox tradition, don’t we?
We recently baptized some fine German Catholic members. They said, It just doesn’t seem like church without a cross up front. We put up a cross.

I also find merit in part of this quote,
“However what It Is Written is offering with cLAim is in my opinion narrowly tailored template evangelism and that such an approach just doesn't fit the needs of Los Angeles which is one of Americas most diverse cities.”
It is a narrower template. One speaker no matter who can appeal to every group and subgroup. This is no surprise. As to fitting the needs of LA in General, it was never intended to fill all needs. It is a bad assumption to make. It was to create a dent, a momentum.

“The alternative, which would be to empower our pastors to enact whichever form of evangelism works best in their community, takes a lot more work.”

I assume when you say empower pastors your talking money. Are you? I know they are already empowered and encouraged to reach out to their communities and the unchurched.
I could get a list of the churches who have requested evangelistic grants and the amounts they were given, but suffice it to say not every church has even asked for assistance in evangelistic funds.

Randy also touched on a very salient point.
“If you want to bring people to a saving relationship with Christ, how about a Month long "Crusade" on the books of Romans and Galatians.”
I agree. It was my total point.
Instead of doing something like this and thereby proving there are other formats that will work in this area, the solutions suggested were, Stop, call them up and tell them we prefer status quo (or) nothing.
The individual churches and districts in the area have had plenty of time to try all the things suggested, but haven’t.
I’m not sure the SCC realizes what impressions you leave on the other unions and conferences as well as the public.
You are really good at putting things on TV and on Satellite and the hope Channel and the Loma Linda Channel I cant remember the name.
I’ve seen them many times before. But the programming is not community rally’s or helpful outreach events. Its talking heads at LLU having another debate about some inane technical point that happened from 100 to 2000 years ago. Is that anymore culturally relevant than Boonstra? I think even less so.
It will be a fine day when SCC and other areas ,are out making “Month long "Crusade(‘s)" on the books of Romans and Galatians”.
It’s time to get this out of the classroom and into the street.

I know that Joselito is offering his assessment not opinion. I am not necessarily speaking against you rather speaking to the question you raised. But boy this talk about ethnic minorities really irks me.

Furthermore isn't it interesting that Peru, a country which is experiencing breakneck growth through evangelism, is pushing strong on the idea that small groups are the way to go.

I find this talk of ethnic minorities condescending in two ways
1. The notion that mass evangelism is backwards for America but appropriate for ethnic minorities
2. It ignores the simple fact that Peru has been more in tune with the needs of people today than the SCC

The ironic thing is that It Is Written isn't totally unfamiliar with small group evangelism although they could hardly be said to have pioneered the concept. And clearly cLAim is mass evangelism not small groups.

Bottom line, "ethnic minorities" are doing it right. The Southern California Conference needs to learn from Peru!
Thanks!

It also seems that the local churches that are really growing in this country (mostly non-Adventist), both spiritually and numerically, are the ones that have seriously re-examined everything they do... from worship service and style, to structure(such as small groups where everyone knows your name)... to dynamic, practical preaching that people feel can make a real difference in their lives, rather than a constant apocalyptic focus... to training and empowering members to use their spiritual gifts in meaningful service in and out of the collective church setting, thus giving people a sense of ownership of their church, etc. In other words, these are churches that take responcibility for the state of their own affairs, rather than focusing on the work of the "professionals."

I recently attended a SEEDS conference in the Atlantic union that stressed such...and highlighted many fresh approaches that seem to be now happening within Adventism. The local church to which I belong is also fortunately beginning to turn the corner. We realized we had no choice... it was change or eventually die. The second option wasn't too attractive. We had gone the traditional route in the past, depending upon the big campaign. While you can never argue with winning even one, we have now realized the severe limitations, and the incongruity with North Eastern culture, of such approaches.

People here, by and large, just do not respond anymore to this type of evangelism.

Thanks...

Frank

How many here have invited their non-SDA friends to their church? Were you comfortable in doing so, or where you somewhat apprehensive of what might be said or done that would be embarrassing?

The best and finest way to grow a church is for members to invite their friends to worship with them. Then sit back and listen to what they say.

Years ago, a a minister was invited to speak at the large Central Church here in Fresno. He invited his non-SDA cousin from a nearby town to hear him, and asked her to stand when she was introduced as his relative. After the service, she was told by a member that if she were to join the church she would have to remove her jewelry before being accepted!!

The church that I attend has experienced more than usual growth during its 20 years of existence. None was prompted by evangelistic meetings but by word-of-mouth and by the warm welcome experienced by a one-time visit. No amount of paid evangelism can rival the longevity of such memberships.

Michael said-

I assume when you say empower pastors your talking money. Are you? I know they are already empowered and encouraged to reach out to their communities and the unchurched.
I could get a list of the churches who have requested evangelistic grants and the amounts they were given, but suffice it to say not every church has even asked for assistance in evangelistic funds.

In response to my comment-

The alternative, which would be to empower our pastors to enact whichever form of evangelism works best in their community, takes a lot more work.

It's hardly accurate to suggest that the SCC has given anywhere near $1,000,000.00 in outreach grants to local churches as you've described. One would have to, I think, total up the amount over many years to get near $1,000,000.00.

I will go so far to suggest that if you did a blind poll of all pastors in the SCC a considerable number would be able to think of far better ways of reaching their communities than cLAim.

Michael said-

...talking heads at LLU having another debate about some inane technical point that happened from 100 to 2000 years ago. Is that anymore culturally relevant than Boonstra? I think even less so. ... It’s time to get this out of the classroom and into the street.

The AF lectures you're speaking about were never intended to function as evangelism. It's a false comparison and really is a poor defence of cLAim.

I am so uncomfortable criticising a program in process. I want to see cLAim succeed. I am glad that the people being trained are getting into it. I really do think that we should make the best of the situation we're in.

However that is no reason not to speak truth to power. This is a misuse of money and we can do better.

After reading the numbers above, my suspicions as to motivation and purpose seem confirmed. These types of meeting are predominently an attempt at current membership retention, while being portrayed as an appeal to the unchurched and those Babylonian Sundaykeepers.

A month ago, we had a valley wide "Amazing Facts" Revelation series for the typical month.

The parking lot tended to be full and the meetings well attended. They had been heavily promoted in the local 7 SDA churches, and a mass mailing of the "scary beasts" to the whole community. 95% of those attending were the local Adventist community.

I had several discussions about these meetings with many of the Evangelical Pastors in the community. Most of them just shook their heads.

As long as there is the mindset, that somehow those in Christian churches somehow "need" to be evangelized into "the Truth", little progress will be made in presenting the Gospel of Jesus to those who really need it.

Randy

I just sent the following email to the SCC Evangelism department.

Greetings:

I'm troubled by the amount of money - one million dollars - being spent for the cLAim effort. Given the ethnic diversity and media savvy of the Los Angeles basin, it seems that there exist much more contextually sensitive and, frankly, more engaging ways to reach folks with the Adventist message. Rather than following the old models, one that, we all know, really baptizes a high number of people already attending Adventist churches, and results in a 50% drop out rate, might the SCC use this NAD Preparation Year to use its talents (Matt 25: 14-30) to get more results through local community needs-based evangelism. In using God's money and our members' time, we can get better results if we dream outside the box.

Blessings,
Alexander Carpenter

http://sccevangelism.netadventist.org/index.php?option=com_na_content&ta...

There are evangelism alternatives.

Read Mission in Metropolis: The Adventist movement in an urban world, by Monte Sahlin.

Is "adding members" the same as evangelism? What is the Good News? I like the poem of H.M.S. Richards Sr. written in about the mid-1970's. Go in and Make the Old Thing Right.

Go In And Make the Old Thing Right

Adan saith to Seth, his son,
When Adam’s life was nearly done;
“I’m the first man that e’er was made,
And yet a failure, I’m afraid;
But you are young, and life is thine;
You’ll have a chance that ne’er was mine;
So at last when I give up the fight,
Go in and make the old thing right.”

But when the years had come and gone,
Seth also passed the word along
To Enos, then his son and pride;
And he again, before he died,
To his Cainan made appeal,
Who gave it to Mahalaleel,
So on to Jared went the word,
And deathless Enoch also heard.

Methuselah, through smiles and tears,
Lived with it near a thousand years;
Then after Lamech heard the call
‘Twas Noah bore it last of all,
before the Deluge came to end
A human race that would not mend.
Each father would his son indite:
“Go in and make the old thing right.”

And so the ages went and came,
Yet still the problem was the same;
Unsettled there a Eden’s gate,
For some redemption seemed to wait.
The sin that shortened human breath
The shadow that the world called death,
A million tears to blind our sight,
No man could ever make it right.

And the He came! He came! He came!
Redeemer with the wondrous name.
In birth, in life, in love, in death,
He walked our ways, He breathed our breath,
With pierced hands extended wide,
The Lord of heaven—for us He died
While midday hid its face in night—
Went in and made the old thing right!

H.M.S. Richards.

Now that is worth a million dollars to tell L.A. and the world.

Jesus Saves, Jesus Saves!

Take that Power Point Horror Show and tie a millstone around its lens and toss it in the Pacific Ocean somewhere beyond the Blue Horizon. Tom

Interesting conversation. I appreciate very much Johnny's comments. He worked for me at the Hollywood Church for several months and saw first hand the "vineyard" of our Lord here in Los Angeles and the work we are doing every day to give an engaging and healing witness to God's kingdom. Most appreciated is Johnny's observation that when we get into this debate about public, a-contextual preaching of a pre-packaged message we tend to fall into two camps: 1) those who like that method and are therefore PRO evangelism and 2) those who feel the method and even the message has major holes in it and are therefore, obviously ANTI-evangelism. As he said, nothing could be further from the truth!

One of the key problems is the top-down nature of this. The Conf Committee decided that this was the "silver bullet" to cLAim all of Los Angeles for Jeeeyzus before engaging any pastor in conversation about evangelism. The implication that is not lost on pastors like me who regularly work 12 hour days in God's service, is that we don't know what we're doing or we're not capable of doing what we're supposed to be doing. So the Conf has to come and fix it.

Also, just to register my agreement with the person who said that people definitely don't want to be the target of our campaigning.

I just sent this email.

Dear SCC Evangelism Team:

I'm troubled by the cLAim evangelism campaign that is being supported by the SCC to the tune of $1 million. Not only does a one-size-fits-all, top-down approach to evangelism seem inappropriate for a city as large and diverse as Los Angeles, but the old method of mass evangelism using one "professional" media speaker is outdated and broken. That model might have had it's day many years ago, but now the model needs changing.

People join a church because of relationships and a sense that they are known and valued. How can a tele-evangelist possibly foster authentic relationships? This is clearly the old method of Adventist evangelism where we primarily think we have to convince other Christians that somehow they aren't really Christian unless they convert to Adventism. This method does not bring in the un-churched, and it definitely does not bring in the secular post-modern who might be searching for God, but would never listen to a mass marketed, a-contextual series like It Is Written. You will get results (if you are only looking at baptisms as results), but they will predominantly be people who were already involved in an Adventist church. For those who weren't already involved in a local church, most of them will leave within a year because they didn't join from an authentic context.

If your goal is to get lay members involved, why not let them do more? Why not put this $1 million in a grant pool and have local churches brainstorm about what can work in their community. (Many churches are already having great success at being true partners in their communities--imagine what they could do with better funding.) Local initiatives that are context-sensitive will have a much better success rate (and by this I mean success through authentic relationships that might one day turn into increased membership) than a monolithic, generic approach from the old-school mass media methods that It Is Written represents.

Let It Is Written apply for the grant too--possibly there are some areas where that approach will work, but don't force the entire region to adopt one approach. Don't we respect people more than that? Don't we trust God to work through more than one method? Don't we recognize that local growth requires local input and local initiatives? Allowing local churches to focus on their communities seems like a much healthier and more responsible use of tithe dollars.

Let's trust our local pastors and churches. Let's trust that God works in many ways. Let's re-think this massive funding of a one-size-fits-all, old-school evangelism.

Sincerely,

Daneen Akers

You can send your own comments here:
http://sccevangelism.netadventist.org/index.php?option=com_na_content&ta...

WOW, so many assumptions. It’s the nature of this medium. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Johnny is right about small groups. It is a part of what needs done.
However the current formula for small groups is, if you have a church with 200 active evangelistically minded members who have 50 unchurched friends that are speaking with them on a spiritual level, your church has the ability to touch 10,000 lives.
Do you know of any churches or can your church be counted under such generous assumptions?
http://www.anaheimoc.org/Articles/Archive/Webpage10676.asp
You only have 20 million people to reach more or less. I don’t know what percentages are unchurched. Say its 1/2 or 10 million.
Better get started planting the remaining 10,000 churches in that conference.

Which leads to Franks great comments. Church Plants grow at more than triple the rate of existing churches. The SEEDS conferences and the old sprout events are fantastic lines of work. Many valuable things come out of those events. And it is a multifaceted approach. The last one I attended was a year and a half ago. We have been implementing all the observations you made Frank for the last 5-6 years, and they do work. We have an average of 18% unchurched or people who have lost touch and are reconnecting in attendance.

Now to address some of the other assumptions.
Johnny said,
"It's hardly accurate to suggest that the SCC has given anywhere near $1,000,000.00 in outreach grants to local churches as you've described. One would have to, I think, total up the amount over decades if not half a century (or more) to get near $1,000,000.00."

You missed the point. The point was that many churches do not even plan evangelism events even when funds ARE available. Why fund what people aren’t interested in? The money is obviously there isn’t it? Somebody is spending it. Is it so inconceivable to you that if there was more interest in evangelism there would be more funds? I’ve seen it happen more than once.

"The AF lectures you're speaking about were never intended to function as evangelism. It's a false comparison and really is a poor defence of cLAim."

I never said it WAS designed as evangelism. But IT IS what you are putting out on the air. The bulk of the programming serves to define who and what the sponsor is about for the viewer. It is the persona the unchurched person sees.
The contrast being made was that some people think Boonstra is culturally irrelevant to be broadcast into the LA area while the same people broadcast equally or more irrelevant programming into the same area, in the eye of the unchurched person.

Tom
Absolutely fabulous poem and beautiful timing for such a thought. Thanks

Michael--I don't understand who the "you" is in your comment that "IT IS what you are putting out on the air...." What's the context of this?

Ryan/Johnny--I appreciate your distinction about the nature of these sorts of debates. Ryan said: "I most appreciated is Johnny's observation that when we get into this debate about public, a-contextual preaching of a pre-packaged message we tend to fall into two camps: 1) those who like that method and are therefore PRO evangelism and 2) those who feel the method and even the message has major holes in it and are therefore, obviously ANTI-evangelism. As he said, nothing could be further from the truth!"

This sort of approach to evangelism just makes me sigh in frustration because it is so clearly out-dated by any "success" benchmark that one uses. And yet, I firmly believe that people are hungry for spirituality and authentic spiritual relationships. I also think they want to see Christianity in action (e.g. the Hollywood church initiatives on behalf of social issues in their community). Just because I deeply oppose the It Is Written style of evangelism (at least when it's force-fed on an entire city and uses up all of the budget monies) does not mean that I'm "anti-evangelism." (And I'm sure my definition of evangelism and what would define its success or failure is very different than Shawn Boonstra's.)

This has been a spirited conversation. Please pardon one more reference to ethnic minorities even if this has proved irksome to Johnny. The point of this conversation, I believe, is evangelistic outreach not to Peruvians in Peru (or Asians residing in their respective homeland) but to Peruvians who have migrated and have made North America their home. What do you suggest is a better way than the cLAim/It Is Written approach?

I submitted some data (facts/figures) which I hope can be translated into a coherent explanation or assessment of the situation.

What's your interpretation/opinion in regards to the following?

'Our North American Division has declared the next three years:

* 2008 is the “Year of Preparation”
* 2009 will be “The Year of Proclamation”
* 2010 will be “The Year of Preservation” or discipling.'

My take: It all leads to the next GC session!

Michael--I don't understand who the "you" is in your comment that "IT IS what you are putting out on the air...." What's the context of this?

Daneen,

I was referring to the people and institutions that sponsor and produce the programming in the geographical area under discussion. The AF Lectures and LLU for example.

May be its just me, but it occured to me years ago, What does the local unchurched So CAL resident think or believe we are about based on what we have been putting on the air?

If suspect that if they watch any of the AF Lectures they might think we were kind of like spiritual mathletes.

I am reminded of George Carlins skit about giving his Catholic teacher some difficulties when they had the class George referred to as "Heavy Mystery time". Remember?
He used to ask his teacher, “If God is all powerful….can he make a rock… so BIG… that even he can’t lift it?” I thought it was pretty funny stuff when I heard it a lifetime ago.

Now imagine a bunch of academics actually pursuing the question to solution…... on TV.

I’m not trying to ruffle feathers or say the topics are completely useless, its just an example. I am saying with no background people turning into that type of programming do assume certain things about US. The inclusive us. Adventists.
What kind of people we are. What we are about and interested in. Would they think we were a bunch of technical graduate level legalists? Highbrow philosophers with a closed inbred society and our own vocabulary of Advent speak?
I have heard those accusations from without and from within the church already. What must a new viewer think?
Havent you ever wondered the same thing?

I kind of feel like redefining some terms. We keep using the term evangelism to describe an event such as presented in this piece, or such as Revelation Seminars. Maybe this is where part of the problem lies.

When we view evangelism as an event, it thus becomes something that is out of the ordinary. It is treated as a campaign where the professionals are trotted in, is very often dictated from the top down, is seen as an interruption to the normal life of the church, and is bid adieux with a sigh of relief, with life then returning to normal once it's over. We have traditionally mistaken the one part for the whole ball of wax.

The very life of the church must be bound up with evangelism...24/7...from the content and presentation of our worship services, to the local church structure, to the way people are greeted in the parking lot or at the front door, to the relationships being cultivated by individual members and within small groups. Public events can be employed from time to time merely to reap what is constantly being sown, otherwise, they are rendered practically meaningless.

With that said, I find myself in great sympathy with Randy. I too feel that the "scary beast" method of public presentation needs to go. People are hungry for solutions to their problems, and needing healing for their pain. As long as we ignore that, they will ignore us. Maybe that is one of the reasons they are flocking to other churches in America. God will lead people to where he knows they will truly be taken care of, even if the Sabbath isn't being kept, or their eschatological ducks aren't all in a row.

One night I sat in the middle of a major public meeting in midtown Manhattan, listening to the speaker wax on about the evils of jewelery. This was after all the beast presentations. Meanwhile, I knew that people on that island, not far from the doors, were dying of lonliness, HIV, addictions, etc. I wanted to get up and scream! But the Amens kept coming that night.

I thought that maybe something was wrong with me...

Thanks...

Frank

Amen, Frank. AMEN!!

Frank--Nothing is wrong with you. You're right on in saying that the "scary beast" power point presentations need to go for good. Your Manhattan illustration is far too familiar. It's like trying to polish the silver while the house is burning. I can only guess that people are comfortable in that zone, partially because we feel we can do something (or feel superior) about something as trivial as jewelry while poverty, loneliness, and social injustices take a lot more long-term work and sacrifice.

Michael--To be honest, I've never seen LLU (that goes for almost everyone I know in my age category which is under 40). I'm assuming you mean Loma Linda University? Not everyone on this site is familiar with Adventist acronyms (including myself, sometimes). Don't you have to have a special satellite to get those channels (like the Hope Channel)? I can hardly imagine how anyone who wasn't already very familiar with Adventism would buy a special dish to get a few religious channels. That seems like a very different scenario with an "inside" audience, if you will.

I suspect this is happening by means of a challenge and some matching funding and a big PR campaign. Wasn't there not too long ago a big youth type conference to claim a city in Texas? I wonder how that shook out?

Elaine has described one model of church growth "by word-of-mouth and by the warm welcome experienced by a one-time visit". That really wouldn't take much of a budget.

A loud cry from me to Frank. Amen brother!

As you know, the pope was in town this weekend. (Frank, you're here in New York? Did the meetings you were attending have anything to do with his visit?) The reception he got here was pretty amazing.

I just read an e-mail referencing this and it made me think about this post. Here it is:

"During the Pope's visit, the President of the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops presented an outline of the American Catholic Church's priorities over the next years as follows:

The episcopal conference has recently identified the strengthening of marriage and of family life as one of five priorities for our common attention in the next several years. The other four are protecting the life and dignity of the human person at every stage of life's journey; handing on the faith in the context of sacramental practice and the observance of Sunday worship; fostering vocations to ordained priesthood and consecrated life; and profiting from the cultural diversity of the church here, especially from the gifts of Hispanic Catholics."

I wonder how much "growth/retention" we'd experience in the LA area if 1 million dollars was spent in any one of these areas over the next 5 years (modified for our tradition, of course. Think family ministry, care of the young and old, improving worship services, better recruitment and training of pastors, and cultural empowering and relevant ministries.)

Zane,

I'm a native Bronx boy. I live now in southern Ct., and attend church in Westchester. Also grew up a RC.

That's it in a nutshell. Hope to see you in the area.

Thanks...

Frank

BTW Zane,

The meetings I was talking about took place ten years ago...nothing to do with the papal visit.

Frank

This has been a spirited conversation. Please pardon one more reference to ethnic minorities even if this has proved irksome to Johnny. The point of this conversation, I believe, is evangelistic outreach not to Peruvians in Peru (or Asians residing in their respective homeland) but to Peruvians who have migrated and have made North America their home. What do you suggest is a better way than the cLAim/It Is Written approach?
Joselito

Before Alex noted the high dropout rate following evangelistic campaigns that were one-off events. The article I linked to in talking Peru said-

What's more, Ferreyra adds, the rate of apostasy has declined from 80 percent to 17 percent thanks to discipleship through small groups.

Such numbers are important, world church executive secretary Pastor Matthew Bediako noted, because while the Seventh-day Adventist church added 1,000,000 members in the last 12 months, it also lost about 500,000.

In the Southern Africa-Indian Ocean region, according to regional president Pastor Paul Ratsara, the church surpassed the 2,000,000-member mark in large part due to small group evangelism. He noted, "92 percent of the people won through small groups are now winning others to Christ."

Small group ministry is also playing a role in the Inter-American church region, said Pastor Israel Leito, area president. He expects this rapidly growing territory to achieve 3,000,000 members by next March.
Adventist News Network

Elaine also mentioned that the most effective evangelism is done through friendship. These personal ties that bind is far more effective at building disciples than the disconnected televangelism which lacks this personal relationship.

Ironically if cLAim has any chance of succeeding it won't be because of Shawn Boonstra, it will be because of small groups. Which begs to question, why do we need to spend $1,000,00.00 on this single event? Beyond small groups I also suggested that the best evangelism method is that which is judged as appropriate by local pastors and their congregations. That they, not a conference committee, is best attuned to the needs of their committee. That it's true that most people don't like being targeted by mass evangelism

Big-Programs like this feel steeped in pride to me & I have a hard time not being embarrassed of my church for them.
Kris Loewen

That was also noted by Trevan Osborn in his series for the Spectrum blog.

Ryan Bell is spot-on when he says-

One of the key problems is the top-down nature of this. The Conf Committee decided that this was the "silver bullet" to cLAim all of Los Angeles for Jeeeyzus before engaging any pastor in conversation about evangelism. The implication that is not lost on pastors like me who regularly work 12 hour days in God's service, is that we don't know what we're doing or we're not capable of doing what we're supposed to be doing. So the Conf has to come and fix it.

Through the comments above you'll see how the participants of this Spectrum blog discussion have indeed been constructive. They not only identify what is wrong with cLAim, they offer concrete suggestions as to what could work. Many even offer suggestions that might help cLAim not be a total failure.

I just want to clarify, from the reports that I've read, that the whole million would be used for more than just paying It is Written.

Yes, I've been pretty impressed with the constructive, creative, successful alternatives that the commenters have suggested. Daneen, those suggestions would be so much better.

In fact, local, human-to-human, needs-based, community conversations are actually the traditional, old style of growing churches. Flying in the sorta big TV dude is actually a fairly recent phase.

I just sent SCC a message relating that as a young adult and an Adventist, if I were "evangelized" I would hope that it would happen in the context of a friendship with someone from my own community and would involve food and hanging out and spending time talking the way that friends do.

I also mentioned that I am training for ministry, and that I would feel uncomfortable, even upset, if I were a pastor in SCC and were compelled to hand over all of my contacts to It Is Written in order that they might properly "evangelize" them.

Bravo, Jared!

A good litmus test, how do we feel when high pressure evangelistic tactics are used on us? How do we feel when a JW comes to our door? Or do we justify our own tactics because we have the truth and they don't?

Thanks...

Frank

To call it "evangelism" is charitable. We're talking about membership drives mascarading as concern for other people. As long as the evangelizers are more concerned about themselves (the need to increase membership) than they are about the people they try to reach, the effort is not going to have great success.

Maybe I'm overlooking comments above, but I don't see anybody talking about the needs of the people they hope to reach. Who are these people, what can you offer them that's going to mean more to them than it will to you?

A couple questions: Do evangelistic campaigns like this answer questions that people are actually asking? I don't know anyone who is asking questions like: "can God make a rock so big that even he can't lift it?" Or even ones like: "what does the Bible predict about the future of America?"
I really resonate with the Spirit in your comments frank; if something is wrong with you, its wrong with me too.
And if its an illness to feel this way, I'm glad I'm sick.

Aage, I think the assumption that a message of hope and truth will be preached and what people need is a message of hope and truth.

When the belief is such, it is pretty hard to tell the difference between bringing what the world needs to them and increasing membership.

I view this campaign as an attempt of the conference to inspire bottom up approaches by spending big bucks on marketing "top down"...

Top down approaches is not in and of itself a bad thing. However, it is really important to have a quality checks incorporated into campaigns like this.

I personally believe this campaign is outdated - with other words - out of touch with the medium they are using and the target their trying to reach. I also believe its to late to stop the wheels of this campaign now. What ought to be demanded now is that the campaign incorporates an independent assessment group consisting of good media consultants etc. In this way the conference would at least get an independent assessment and report upon whether the campaign was successful or not.

I have not heard of many of these SDA TV Campaigns that incorporates an independent group that would asses the cost - benefits of such an campaign.

Maybe such a study would convince leaders on the "top" both in the US and Europe (my continent) that we need to continually find new forms and methods to reach the future generation. Be more progressive with other words.. ;)

-Quack Quack-

Johnny

Here's the official stats for the Peruvian Union from 1996 through 2006. Two years in a row (2000 and 2001) a significant number of communicants were dropped from the rolls while the accession rate (baptisms and profession of faith) remained constant. What's a likely explanation for this?

Dropped
2,222 2,434 4,053 1,510 8,694 18,122 3,984 2,355 3,635 4,352 2,945

Total Losses
2,774 2,900 5,388 5,250 14,788 22,349 8,306 6,416 7,612 9,421 5,751

Accession Rate
5.02% 7.68% 6.61% 12.23% 10.73% 9.39% 9.94% 10.50% 9.31% 9.69% 8.02%

1. Alex has certainly earned his stripes! I thought Roy Branson held the record for the most summers as a student literature evangelist with me a close second. I now think that he, Alex, surpasses us both!

2. Does anyone know what percentage of the overall SCC budget one million dollars is. My first impression was that it was not much.

3. Can anyone do an annonymous survey of all the pastors and first elders of the congregations to see what they think? Johnny Johnson Ramirez might be able to help us on this.

4. Perhaps we should reconsider the old idea of "evangelist centers" in urban areas that we used before the three-week "reaping campaign" was made the norm by Fordyce Detamore first in Texas then elsewhere. I think the Hollywood Church is ideally situated for such an endeavor.

5. What these meetings will say bothers me more than the money they will cost.

6. John Paulien's studies show that our growth comes not among ethnic minorities as such but among first generation immigrants; i.e. it is just as difficult to evangelize second and third generation Hispanics as Anglos.

7. I agree with Dick Larsen. "Just say no" is sometimes the best way for a congregation to relate to these situations. I've been told that at least one in the SCC has done that.

Sorry for repeating things that have already been said!

Dave

Daneen said
"Don't you have to have a special satellite to get those channels (like the Hope Channel)?"

You are correct some of those channels used to be that way and you can still get some in that format I believe, however with some of the channels depending on interest in local markets you can even get some of these now on dish network.

There was a big drive(write in campaign) to get 3ABN in a local metromarket here a few years ago.

Also I have seen some of this programming on local access channels too. I can only assume someone recorded them and rebroadcast them at a reserved time.

sirkeyn, very good idea for an independent analysis. My guess is that the brethren would say it cost too much money. I could be wrong, but if that were true it would be ironic, wouldn't it? If we don't start doing that independent analysis we might wake up one day to find that we have "no clothes."

I like David Larsen's suggestions about urban "evangelist centers." I confess to being rusty on my pre-Dedamore Adventist evangelism history, so I'd need a quick course on what that is. I also think I'd prefer the name "urban mission center" for a variety of reasons. In fact, if I'm understanding the concept correctly we are already planning something like this.

Also, Dr. Ramirez, if you were to take Dr. Larsen's challenge to survey the SCC pastors I would be very encouraged.

The Central Office, million dollar mega thrust into greater L.A. “to add members to the church” can not by any stretch be labeled Evangelism. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 10th edition defines Evangelism: “1. the winning or revival of personal commitment to Christ.” It further defines evangel as good news i.e. The Gospel. Furthermore, Webster’s defines Gospel as the message concerning Christ, the Kingdom of God, and salvation.

We find Paul addressing the fragmentation of believers in I Corinthians 3: 4-7. He continues in verses 8-11 to point to Jesus Christ as the foundation. He pointedly states that building on any other foundation is doomed to the fire.

Paul even had to confront Peter, when Peter attempted to separate Jewish Christians from Gentile Christians.

“It is Written” is taken from the response of Jesus to Satan during Christ’s encounter with the Devil in the Wilderness. Well it is also written that Salvation is in Christ alone!

In fact, the book of Revelation is about the Alpha and Omega of our being and our redemption. Rightly exposited, the book of Revelation is the sum of the Gospel to all persons, not just a final generation. It is not about fear and death but about Life Everlasting. It is not about a day or a mark but about the King of King and Lord of Lords. The Old Testament tells us Christ is expected. The Gospels tells us He dies for us. The Epistles tells us He lives, and Revelation tells us He reigns.

Charts, Diagrams, Beasts, Marks, Signs, have been prostituted to
“sell a product” not to reveal Jesus Christ.

It is the Barnum approach—there is a sucker born every second.

Yes Los Angeles needs an Evangelist but it doesn’t need a packaged program like the contemporary “It Is Written” hype.

When the project fails, analogies will be made to the few that were “saved” in the days of Noah even though he built and preached for 120 years.

The Great Question remains: “What Must I ‘Do” to be saved?” So the questioner is referred to 28 Fundamental Beliefs and on to 28 volumes of Ellen G. White. Knowing, of course, Paul’s reply was “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house.”

I suggest, spend a hundred thousand dollars on a modern paraphrase of the Book of Revelation revealing the Lord of Lords and King of Kings as He really is—In charge now and forever more: the Victor over sin and death and the author of sin and death.

The book of Revelation is about “Blessed Assurance” so why not tell the dear people of L.A. the “Truth” and set them free! Bind them to Jesus Christ plus nothing. Tom

The term "unchurched" has been used in this discussion. That must mean that there are a lot of people who "need" church or else do not attend church. Why is that such a problem?

If getting people into a church is the primary reason for such meetings, why not join with the Graham crusades and contribute to that endeavor and then invite the many different churches to contribute time, money, and personnel to invite those "unchurched" to attend with the person that "brung them"? Let the discipling and unique beliefs of each church be represented and all those churches could benefit.

There's bound to be a problem and reluctance to such a suggestion: No SDA minister could afford to merely preach the Gospel; it must present unique Adventist beliefs first and foremost.

Anyone who is interested in exploring more about the idea of evangelism as constant process vs. event...try reading "The Seven Habits of Highly Ineffective Churches," by Ron Gladden. He says it a lot better than I did, and goes into much greater detail, of course.

A good read...gets one thinking...

Thanks...

Frank

To Ryan.

He he.. yes, to blame the cost would be a poor argument to not have an independent assessment of such a large campaign. An independent analysis could give them valuable information not only about the campaign itself, but also give recommendations for the future. It might even help future campaigns to be more relevant and cost efficient.. ;).

An independent analysis like this could be done in co-operation with a good media department at a university or two. If the conference was lucky, they might even get the independent analysis done pro-bono.

I have often been amazed that we don't have a better back up system, or a quality assurance if you may, within our own various SDA organizations. Specturm is doing a good job with keeping some sort of balance by opening up for dialouge, but it is still sort of "outside" the official walls if you may. These discussions, assessments and critiques that comes outside their own walls ought to be better incorporated into every official SDA structure locally, national and divisions and globally. I would say the present structure as spectrum have discussed earlier have stagnated healthy dialog and quality assurance. This Campaign we're discussing here is just the top of an enormous iceberg in my eyes. There are so many campaigns, small and big, that lack a proper independent analysis and quality check.

Decentralization and more bottom-up structures is neccasary in the future.

-Quack Quack-

Hi Ryan!

In places like downtown London and New York City we used to lease or buy significant property at which a whole lot of different things were done to be of service and witness.

This, and six month campaigns used to be the norm. That's the length of time poeple like my father used to do. Or maybe a year.

I specifically recall when my father went from Hawaii to Texas where he joined other SDA mininstes to learn from Elder Detamore the concept of a three-week "reaping campaign."

It was never the thought that a person could go from zero knowledge of Adventism to the baptismal pool in three weeks.

The idea was that the evangelist could help the pastor reap the harvest that the pastor had planted and cultivated over time.

Symbolic of this relationship is that although he held many "reaping campaigns" all over the world, it was my father's practice NOT TO BAPTIZE ANYONE. I won't say "never" because there may have been an exception or two along the way for logistical reasons. But for all practical purposes "never."

The norm was for the pastor to decide who was ready and whom to baptize. None of these mass baptisms down in the convention center, or whatever, took place. Such things would have shocked SDA ministers in previous generations.

Even Billy Graham crusades were planned years in advance with all the churches developing new members first. If there was not enough advanced preparation, the Billy Graham team would not show up. That is still the pattern.

In other words, the brief "reaping campaign" was never meant to do the whole thing, either for us or for Billy Graham.

And it was never the idea that the evangelist would come and invite the pastors to help him. It was always the pastor inviting the evangelist.

My father was always invited by the pastor, not the other way around.

The Hollywood Church is located precisely where "Evangelistic Centers," or "Urban Institutes" or whatever we should now call them, should be.

I recommend that all study the old ways and revitalize those aspects that seem helpful today.

One can throw millions of dollars at a city with very meager results unless YEARS OF PREPARATION come first. Our parents and grandparents in ministy understood this very well.

One million dollars is not much money as such city-wide campaings go. It is almost as though SCC put up that amount as a "token gesture of co-operation" with "It is written." It is not a serious commitment.

I doubt very much that the SCC conference president is expecting huge results. I can't imagine that he does not know better.

One million dollars could do a lot to transform the Hollywood Church into an "Urban Mission," however.

Maybe when it comes to Christian witness we SDAs need to "go back to the future!"

Thanks!

Dave

Joselito,

The results of building churches with small groups are impressive: over the past six years, the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Peru has seen an average of 16.5 percent membership growth each year, which has translated to 327,623 new members during the period, said Pastor Melchor Ferreyra, who until recently was the president of the church there; he is now executive secretary for the church's South American region.

What's more, Ferreyra adds, the rate of apostasy has declined from 80 percent to 17 percent thanks to discipleship through small groups.
source

Dave

You prompted a story:

We moved from Loma Linda to Augusta, Ga. in 1966. The SDA pastor lost a boy in an auto accident prior to the boy, age
11, being baptized. Thus, the pastor had a thing about getting Church School children baptized. Each October, he would hold an evangelistic series in the Church School, my son was in the sixth grade. The pastor was putting a lot of pressure on him to be baptized. The boy confided in me about the pressure. I asked if he wanted to be baptized, the reply was yes but not now. I said, that was fine with me. I added when ever that time came mother,I,and the Lord will be very pleased. The Friday evening when the "call was made" the pastor walked down each aisle and stood for a moment a each pew that contained a Church School student. When he arrived at our pew. I stood up with arms folded and looked the pastor straight in the eye. He stared back for a moment or two and then went on. I sat down and the boy said: "Thanks dad!" The boy was baptized about 18 months later, at his choosing.
"The phrase: "With every head bowed and every eye closed!" in our household is a pressure tactic unbecoming a Christian let alone a pastor. Tom

David, we have been working with the same concept of evangelism process you described your Father participated in.
I referenced that segment of the process as a "graduation event" in prior comments.
The principals you describe are sometimes not well understood today. It can sometimes lead to Pastors perceiving their toes are getting stepped on and that some evangelist/snake oil salesman is going to come in and "show them how to do it" or go from 0 to 100 mph in only 3 weeks and because of that all the people will be "gone in 6 months."

The concept Dave describes also was often called, "a city or valley wide series" or some such term. The idea was that all churches were working with interests and developing relationships and doing all the things churches should do. (That was the assumption)
Then instead of the inefficiencies of each church having a series culminating in baptism, a special speaker would come in to provide the speaking duties for all the local churches.

I know of properties bought by churches in centralized locations where different outreach and service type ministries are offered. It’s multifunctional. Serving as a Red Cross blood drive location, teaching first aid classes, healthy lifestyle, cooking classes, Dorcas type clothing and food drives, ect.
They have also been used as a more comfortable, (less formal) meeting place for new interests and new members in Church Plant settings. It allows a new Church Plant to have a useable space, reasonable rent and starting place for new groups/congregations until they are able to find/build their own facility.

Elaine said,
“The term "unchurched" has been used in this discussion.”
It’s used to describe many spiritual states. I would say for me it is people of no religious background. People who do not know about God but are interested. In terms of this subject of LA Evangelism it would hopefully be whoever the local churches are studying with and reaching out to.

I am familiar with the successes they have had in South America although I have more experience in Brazil. Never been to Peru.
In some citys in brazil they have 3 conferences in one city and the goal of having a church within walking distace of every person. They told me, If you can walk to the market and walk to work why shouldnt we be able to walk to church?

I found an interesting artical where Melchor Ferreyra said,
"I want to express my gratitude for this vision where we are united around one program and not only united by a motto."

They also had participation by the Brazil Voice of Prophecy team. Not unlike the It is Written Team huh?
There is no way of knowing how many toes felt stepped on by reading this, but they all did talk of their cooperation being one of their best assests.

"Joining forces within the strategy of integrated evangelism is the secret of our advance," says Helder Roger, president of the Adventist Church in the Northeast region. He thanked all those who participated in the evangelism campaign, saying, "It was touching to see the cooperation of everyone." He said the program united the efforts of church members, theology students, pastors, administrators, the Northeast Theological Seminary, and the Brazil Voice of Prophecy team. /quote

http://news.adventist.org/data/2001/1004968598/index.html.en

May be lessons to be learned here too.

David

The amazing thing to me is that God would depend upon the frailties of humanity to tell His Story.

I recall a Week of Prayer at Loma Linda in which the leader was a faculty member at Andrews. His title was: "Lord Help My Unbelief" in which his thesis was Unbelief was a thing to be encouraged. The entire week was a puzzlement to the pastoral staff, the students, and the faculty. It wasn't until about a month later that we learned that the leader had resigned his post at Andrews and had taken a post at a very liberal seminary.

I also recall a traveling evangelist 'converting' the wife of a construction worker here in Augusta. At the end of the series, the evangelist left his wife and moved in with the recent convert. Just at the time, the convert's story appeared in Southern Tidings--praising the Lord and the man who brought her to the "Truth".

Talk about grieving the Holy Spirit.

I guess that is why--times of trouble occur--some how the Lord has to separate the wheat from the tares. Lord may we stand fast in the Grace of Thy Dear Son. Tom

I guess I don't understand why it is "inefficient" to have local churches baptize people if and when they're ready. (Great story, Tom.) Why does a special speaker need to be brought in for a special city-wide push? If I were a local pastor, I would just bristle with the implied assumptions in that scenario. If I were a potential new member, I would likewise bristle at having the big brass step in and ratchet up the pressure.

I'm not sure who mentioned it earlier, but why do we tend to think of evangelism as a short-term, splashy event? If our churches aren't experiencing growth (or if they're losing half as many out the back door every year), we should rethink how we do church from every angle, how we present ourselves and are perceived in the community, how we love, how we are involved in the community, how many authentic relationships we are building--these are all processes that happen continually and seem to be more an an evangelistic attitude toward everyday living than an old school, big tent revival altar call style event with the cameras rolling. If we must have a department and a big spending campaign, why not keep the control in the hands of the local pastors/churches?

But, I'm repeating myself. Maybe someone from the Southern California Conference will chime in here?

The inability to funish information of a "cost-benefit analysis" to determine the dollar cost for each new convert, PLUS, the attrition rate at 1-5 years would be of immense value. When any institution is unable to show the expense necessary to produce a finished product (converts), there is absolutely no way to determine which methods are outrageously expensive or inefficient. The conference is very able to give the desired figure needed ($1 million) but what are the expected results, based on previous similar expenditures?

How long will members be coerced into such investments of giving without the least semblance of expectations provided? Would you so easily give hundreds, even thousands of dollars with absolutely no expectations? These "efforts" have been ongoing for nearly one hundred years, so surely they have figures to substantiate their potential success rate.

Elaine

I don't know current figures. But back in the late 70's the cost per baptism was between $700 and $800. Let's say it is now $1000.00 that would be 1000 new members. For a $1000 dollars you could get 1000 people in L.A. to say yes to anything. So why bother, just offer an entry prize. Tom

Daneen said
“I guess I don't understand why it is "inefficient" to have local churches baptize people if and when they're ready.”

“Why does a special speaker need to be brought in for a special city-wide push?”

“ If I were a local pastor, I would just bristle with the implied assumptions in that scenario.”
:)
“If I were a potential new member, I would likewise bristle at having the big brass step in and ratchet up the pressure.”

“I'm not sure who mentioned it earlier, but why do we tend to think of evangelism as a short-term, splashy event?”

Sorry That was very unusual. Only with computers huh?

Daneen said
“I guess I don't understand why it is "inefficient" to have local churches baptize people if and when they're ready.”
Its not. It’s just a different way to do it. The efficiencies are: if you are going to do a city wide seminar and, if you have multiple churches in an area and each were to rent a hall or do mass mailings or advertizing or schedule musicians or many other things, many of them would be redundant or encompass a smaller area than more churches working together could accomplish.
“Why does a special speaker need to be brought in for a special city-wide push?”
They don’t have too. It’s just more efficient if you WERE doing a city wide push for the reasons mentioned above. Try planning a city wide event and then asking for a local Pastor to do all the speaking for the seminar as well! Ouch!
“ If I were a local pastor, I would just bristle with the implied assumptions in that scenario.”
Assumptions are difficult enough. I try and stay away from implied assumptions even more. :)
“If I were a potential new member, I would likewise bristle at having the big brass step in and ratchet up the pressure.”
You make it sound like a police state. How exactly does big brass ratchet up pressure anyway? I’ve never seen or heard of anyone forced or compelled to come to a series. It’s by invitation. But that’s just my experience.
“I'm not sure who mentioned it earlier, but why do we tend to think of evangelism as a short-term, splashy event?”
It’s not good that people do. Frank articulated exceedingly well on that subject.

Why not just give 1,000 small groups $1,000.00 each to function?? Or 10,000 small groups $100.00 each?

I'm going to copy and paste a posting that I made under Rich Hannon's "Circling the Mountain Critique" (4-20-08).

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

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

The interesting thing is that many of the so-called mega-churches don't do special "evangelism campaigns" with a "hired gun." Evangelism/discipleship through cultivating authentic relationships is so part of their culture, and so built into the small group structures of these churches, that they don't need to. I like how Saddleback describes their growth pattern as growing bigger and smaller at the same time.

We can learn...

Frank

Gaylene,

I am one of those like your friends who left the Adventist belief system and attend a large, Holy Spirit filled evangelical church.

I have to tell you that for me, upon reading Romans, Galatians, and Colossians, there was absolutely NO guilt feelings about leaving Adventism and the Sabbath behind.

Colossian 2:16-23, Romans 14, Galatians 3 set me free from any potential guilt I might have theoretically felt. The Holy Spirit set me free.

John 5:24 and Romans 8:1 laid to rest ANY and ALL questions about the Investigative Judgment theology.

For me it wasn't small groups, although they are available.

What struck me, was that as an Adventist, I had spent 45 years paying homage to the "Shadows" when in reality Christ had come and fulfilled them.

That is the whole Good News of a life in Christ. My eternity started with the decision to accept the gift. I know longer have to "work" for it. I am living it. I don't have to be, and never will, and cannot be perfect, accept through the saving blood of my Substitute.

Evangelism for me, is my daily sharing of this reality through my interactions with everybody in my influence.

When my church has an Easter program or a Christmas presentation, or for that matter, any program or sermon, I invite many, especially my Adventist friends and family.

I KNOW that the sermon, or the program will be the Gospel. There is no such thing as cheap grace. The grace I have encountered is priceless, not cheap.

There is however a freedom from the shadows, from the rituals, from the bondage, that was and continues to be the Adventism theological paradigm.

Like I mentioned earlier, you want to preach the Good News of the Gospel, preach--and live the message of Romans, Galatians and Colossians. As Tom so aptly pointed out, Revelation isn't feared when you understand that your salvation is secure ala John 3:16.

God Bless you all,

Randy

In my review of the Adventist Review of January 17, 2008, I made the following suggestions. To my knowledge, none of this information has been forthcoming. I’m not in favor of this kind of evangelistic effort, but the LA evangelistic blitz should at least be postponed until information regarding the Portland crusade can be analyzed.

When ADVENTIST OUTREACH TARGETS PORTLAND, OREGON, the effectiveness of this all-out media blitz should be evaluated by non-Adventist, media consultants. Research findings should include the ethnicity and socioeconomic status of newly evangelized members, and provide a detailed accounting of how much money was spent and for what. This study should also include a five-year follow-up survey of those baptized. The data obtained would assist the Church in evaluating the effectiveness of this type of evangelism. At present this information is virtually nonexistent.

And at the outset I affirm all the good aspects Gaylene brought up. I also applaude Willow creek for taking their assessment and publishing their findings.But,The mega churches have their problems as well. Which of us doesnt?

There are 2 video links to Greg Hawkins and Bill Hybels’ interviews on the subject midway down.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2007/10/willow_creek_...

Spiritual consumerism can be a problem in a church.
You can appeal to people with valet parking and breakfast and any number of things with the hope that eventually they will progress in their discipleship, but it can be difficult motivationally as the Reveal report discribes.

Many of our churches are adopting a model called Free Market Small Groups. Something like Gaylene is discribing possibly. From what I have seen they have been quite successful hence the number of churches trying it out.

Part of the success is the format where each group lasts 1 quarter. A definte time period. We have found it makes it much easier for a person to be a group leader when their commitment is not open ended.
A good way to kill small groups is to say, We need to have small groups and everyone says, yes, that will be great. Do you want to be a small group leader? How long? Eternally,or until you drop.
Gaylene, Do you feel these real world applicable small groups were instrumental in your friends decision to join the mega church? I mean did they actually need help with pertinent issues your church did'nt/could'nt provide or was it more needing friends or more friends?

"...over the past six years, the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Peru has seen an average of 16.5 percent membership growth each year, which has translated to 327,623 new members during the period...

"What's more, Ferreyra adds, the rate of apostasy has declined from 80 percent to 17 percent thanks to discipleship through small groups."
Posted by: Johnny A. Ramirez | 23 April 2008 at 1:06

Johnny

Spectrum readers know better than to repeat the official party line without a second thought. Here are the annual stats, from 1996 through 2006, and my source. You do the math!

Growth Rate
4.27% 6.91% 5.25% 10.99% 7.57% 4.91% 8.39% 9.37% 8.12% 8.34% 7.26%
Accession Rate
5.02% 7.68% 6.61% 12.23% 10.73% 9.39% 9.94% 10.50% 9.31% 9.69% 8.02%

Total Gains
17,813 28,308 26,035 50,712 49,522 46,593 51,769 59,039 57,475 64,777 57,956
Total Losses
2,774 2,900 5,388 5,250 14,788 22,349 8,306 6,416 7,612 9,421 5,751

Ending Membership
367,570 392,978 413,625 459,087 493,821 518,067 561,530 614,153 664,016 719,372 771,577

http://www.adventiststatistics.org/view_Summary.asp?FieldInstID=820227

"This study should also include a five-year follow-up survey of those baptized. The data obtained would assist the Church in evaluating the effectiveness of this type of evangelism."

5 years? A preacher preaches for 15-20 nights and moves on leaving the newly baptized to be sheparded by the local churches where their families and relationships are. But if they dont stick for 5 years you want to blame the evangelist?

"Research findings should include the ethnicity and socioeconomic status of newly evangelized members, and provide a detailed accounting of how much money was spent and for what."

Then what? Declare failure and go home? What are the acceptable numbers? What are the numeric goals and WHO judges whether whatever the numbers say is worth it or not?

Do you have any idea what a 5 year study like you are suggesting would cost for the attendees of the Portland event?

Randy,

I’ve watched your postings for some time now and I have been impressed. What I see, for the most part, is what I feel is so missing in most of the rest. This whole thread is about meetings and baptisms, studies and money spent per person brought in. I ache to see my church turn their focus to meeting people’s needs, forming honest friendships, sharing what God has done in our lives and genuinely reaching out with no hidden agendas. I’m afraid we’ve been so programmed to think of everyone as a potential statistic. Don’t we know that people can see through this? Why not do good for the sake of doing good and improving people’s lives. Why not share Christ just because we are so excited we want others to know what we know? Somehow we seem to think that the church’s mission must go beyond this. Why? Isn’t God the one who is responsible for changing hearts? Our sharing should come spontaneously out of a heart full of love for our Best Friend. Randy, I loved what you said,

“Evangelism for me, is my daily sharing of this reality through my interactions with everybody in my influence.”

I do not believe that small groups are the only answer. I do, however, believe that very little of any permanence will happen without one-on-one relasionships. And, if this is happening, then I don’t feel there’s much need for million dollar extravaganzas. It happens naturally, between friends. I never thought I could give bible studies; I certainly would never have signed up to give them! Nor would I go to seminars to learn how. Somehow that seemed to turn what should be a natural event into something very mechanical. I did, however, find myself going through some simple bible studies that I scrounged up at the last minute after sharing with a friend about my relationship with the Lord (no one can argue with your personal testimony.) And, that all happened because she came to me asking.

The thing that struck me about our friends who left for the mega-church was that they both admitted they strongly believed in the 7th-day as the Sabbath and yet, in spite of a very strong conviction, which they admitted left them with feelings of guilt, they STILL left and never came back. I wanted to know what pull that other church had that ours did not.

Michael,

I believe our friends first visited this mega-church out of curiosity (perhaps prompted by observing some indiscretions of a couple of the leaders in their particular church. We’d moved 5 years earlier, so I’m not real sure.) From what I understand they tried out a small group, at the new mega-church, that was dealing with the particular problem their family had found themselves in. They stayed because of the close, caring, non-judgmental Christian friendships they formed.

People are longing for friends that will reach out and love them as they are, no matter what they’ve done, no matter their positions. Let God take care of the rest. He’s capable of taking them where He wants them. We really can trust Him to do this. I’ve seen it happen many times. Those you lead to Christ personally are the ones who stay in the church! And...it doesn’t cost a dime!!! Now, that’s a good deal!

P.S. Limiting small groups to a definite time period has, at least in our present SDA church, seemed to encourage more to join and make leadership easier to find. I have, however, seen some groups voluntarily continue on for much longer.

Gaylene,
Your post discribes evangelism pefectly. A community outreach event or group which gives a chance to form a relationship with someone.

It also discribes what makes for success after a series ends. Its 90% of an effective sheparding program.
Its nice and best and most desireable if it happens organically, but without some intentionality some that come into the church dont always find the close friendships that are needed.

It is nice however to note that everyone is agreeing here that small groups play a critical part in our ongoing efforts.

If there is a large number in the church, let the members be formed into small companies, to work not only for the church members, but for unbelievers. If in one place there are only two or three who know the truth, let them form themselves into a band of workers.--Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 22.

I think an independent analysis would be interesting but what would they base success on? Increased membership? Performance surveys with questions like "Were the greeters tonight friendly and appropriately dressed"? Studies could show effectiveness of various publicity ventures.

Michael, "But if they don't stick for 5 years you want to blame the evangelist?" I don't think anyone has blamed the "evangelist", rather the message and method. Problems with new converts to SDAism is that during a series they (if they let themselves) will be led into the whole of an idealist's view of Adventism. On entering into relationships in the church they will meet people like myself that have issues with some of the things taught and agreed to in baptismal vows (see Monte's comments on EGW). Now I have a choice, to speak to my conviction or to piously, for the "good" of the body, speak the views upheld by the "evangelistic" corporation. Myself, I strive to speak and act on conviction. The likely outcome is that very soon (actually we're speaking from personal history) I will be eased out of sight in any leadership for the sake of the "babes in Christ" (read babes i