Interestingly yesterday I posted a blog article on the decline of mainstream Christianity. http://www.cafesda.blogspot.com/

It is based on an article from 1993 but really it demonstrates that your predictions are more historical observations than predictions. The difference between main line Protestant churches and the megachurches is probably not as profound as some think. More importantly however the difference in the people attending these churches or even the Adventist church is not much different. The decline of Christianity and Adventism are most likely the same. They can be classed in the two categories of "lay liberalism" (see the article for the definiton,suffice to say a reaction against fundamentalism) and Fundamentalism. Both are destroying Christianity. Attempts at things like "new spirituality" whatever that means are likely attempts to combat the destruction of these adverse forms of Christianity. 

The first step now  is to identify the damage done and begin to repair Christianity something that will take quite a while no doubt. Unfortunately much of Adventism is swinging back to the fundamentalism which caused most of the problems in the first place.

Herb,

 You refer to rarely hearing an Adventist Sermon.

Please explain what you mean by an "Adventist Sermon.  Must each Sabbath consist of explaining, discussing and proving the validity of the 28 Fundamentals?  Don't all baptized members study these in their baptismal classes before commiting to become a member? It would seem that maintaing the Christian life would offer a blessing for all.

What about visitors?  Often they come as an invitation from friends, or for a special occasion.  Is it a good idea for the speaker to give them the "whole ball of wax" about Adventism?  Isn't Christianity similar in all churches, only the propositional "truths" that are different?

 If Adventists are still converting people to "switch" from one Christian church to another, is the Sabbath morning sermon the appropriate time to convince them?  Should not all churches sermons affirm Christianity and not the specific and unique doctrines associated with Adventism?  Most Christians are converted to Christ; SDAs are often former Christians who have converted to certain doctrinal truths very unique to Adventism and are much like JWs and Mormons who are not Christians but have an entirely different perspective.

Is Adventist perspective so foreign that a series of sabbath morning sermons should review them twice a year (28 Fundamentals would be a few more sabbaths)?  Is the aim of Adventism to convince other Christians of the fallacy of their former beliefs and the much better ones offered by Adventism?  Recall that Cliff Goldstein has written that he was convinced to become an SDA from a secular Jew because of the Daniel prophecies. Is the belief in such prophecies the foremost attraction of Adventism?  Is that how it should be?  Isn't that the basis for the many evangelists are attracting crowds?

Elaine: Your questions are the most focused and timely appeals that anyone could ask for. What I mean by an Adventist sermon is saying first what it is not: 1) not the generic sermon one hears in the average Sunday church, good as they may be; in fact, many Sabbath sermons are copied off the internet, such as Rick Warren's; 2) not the rehash of an evangelistic sermon--the milk that Paul says we must move beyond in "growing" our members (Heb 5:12ff);3) not the string of stories/anecdotes tied to a biblical passage without real exposition, etc. Our people, it seems to me, want to know how a prophetically based movement keeps moving toward accomplishing its purpose, what that purpose is, how we know that what we were once told about "end-times" is really happening (without the appeal to excitement over-exaggerated news stories); that is, just what are the contours of last-day events that are shaping up, why the Bible says so much about the kind of people who will live forever, etc. Just a short and incompete answer, I know. What do you think, Elaine? Cheers, Herb

Herb,

I feel that more than the emphasis on how a prophetically based movement keeps moving toward accomplishing its purpose, what that purpose is, how we know that what we were once told about "end-times" is really happening, is directing us to the practical needs of our fellow humans (Matt. 25).

What good is it to focus on "being ready" and how to interpret the "end time" events, when twe can look around and see the physical needs that need no interpretation or exegesis?  What difference does it make if one can recite the prophecies and SDA interpretation and in so doing, has no time to see the many needs in front of him? 

The sermons we should be hearing is how can we help our fellow man, not just in telling us how to interpret D&R (what good is that?) but by helping his fellow man, he will ready without working toward that end,  and that is Christ's idea.  Knowing the prophecies is of no practical help to those in need.

On Adventist Sermons...

Often when one speaks of "Adventist Sermons" they are talking about preaching sermons that center around the defense or proclamation of the unique beliefs of Adventism.  They often center around the preaching of prophecy and the like.  I have heard some pastors say that sometimes you preach "Adventist" sermons and sometimes you preach "evangelical" sermons.  So I think, Dr. Douglass, that when you speak of "Adventist Sermons" people naturally hear only "teaching or defending the unique aspects of Adventist teaching."  In fact that is probably the dominant view.

While I am sure that you do think there is a time for teaching and defending unique Adventist views, it appears that when you speak of "Adventist Sermons" that you are speaking of one being informed by what you term the "Great Controversy Theme." (GCT)  So you are not necessarily speaking of defending or teaching unique Adventist teachings per-se, but just preaching everything through the lens or view that the GCT gives you. 

So there are two issues here.  Should "Adventist Sermons" be caracterized as preaching everything through a "Advenist Lens" or teaching and/or defending unique Adventist teachings.  The other issue is if we think that "Adventist Sermons" are  looking at things through an "Adventist" lens, is the GCT the appropriate caracterization of an Adventist Lens?

I tend to agree that all of our sermons should be flavored with our "Adventism" and think that "generic" sermons that could be preached anywhere would be problematic to not just Adventism but even Calvanistic Presbyterians and perhaps some other groups.  However, I wonder if the GCT is the only way to articulate our heritage.

-- Sherman Haywood Cox II

Sherman: You are hitting the nail on the head. It seems to me that our Adventist congregations, including visiting nonAdventists, want to know what is so distinctive about the messages of the Three Angels. After all, many left other churches because they were told that Adventists have something more solid to say about what the distinctive message is in these endtimes. Of course, every sermon should have the evangelical appeal--seems that Jesus did that about every time He spoke. Most everywhere one looks in the NT, we find appeals to be grown up, mature, prepared to be especially used in proclaiming last-day issues, setting the world up for the return of Jesus. When do we hear about Latter Rain--on whom does it really fall, the Loud Cry and how that is done, the Sealing and what are we talking about specifically, When you and I speak on these subjects, the hearers tell us they haven't heard this for a long, long time, if ever.  Why? But these would be distinctive Adventist sermons. What do you think? Cheers, Herb

Elaine: You are making my point from a different direction. It seems to me that those who are "sealed" (endtime stuff) are those who best reflect the caring Jesus, not only with the material/human relief needed but with a neat, NT-based picture of what kind of a world the last days will look like. Sensing the solid tread of events puts energy and extra joy in helping every human being we touch in some way. Can't have doctrine without service or vice versa and call it authentic NT living. Am I clear? Cheers, Herb

Herb, Why do you refer to the Biblical doctrine of the seal as "end time stuff" The NT, in a few passages clearly equates the Holy Spirit, received on the basis of justification, as the seal:

2Co 1:22  who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.
Eph 1:13  In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 4:30  Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Revelation describes the 144,000 as being sealed in their foreheads. Later, it says they have the Father's name in their foreheads. Clearly, Revelation teaches that the Fathers name is the seal. The epistles indicate that the HS is what seals us. That the HS inscribes the father's name in our heads on the basis of justification can, without effort, be understood from Scripture. This is certainly not limited to the "end times" unless you are referring to the end times that started with the Incarnation of Christ, born of a virgin, by the miraculous power of God.

Ron and Elaine: Always good questions. In many NT instances, the writers look toward the end of human history and the return of Jesus. This is not something easily ignored or recast into some kind of metaphorical future. The sealing is the work of the Holy Spirit on people that God can justify as safe to give eternal life to. I am really using theological shorthand now. If one keeps walking under the Spirit's guidance and empowerment, that person is a candidate for eternal life. I think that is axiomatic. In Rev 7 and 14 we get another outline of this Big Picture--the whole point of God's Plan of Salvation. Sealed people (Rev 7:1-4)  in the end time are those who are able "to stand" (Rev 6:17) during the times of unspeakable pressure that Revelation goes on to describe in very blunt terms. Anyhow, that is the way I see it. Sealed people reflect the character of Jesus, doing what He would do and say in the end time--as He modeled it in Palestine--"they follow the Lame wherever He goes. . . in their mouth was found no deceit (guile) for they are without fault before the throne of God." I can only read what it says. What do you good people think? Cheers, Herb

"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had prior to circumcision" Romans 4;11.

 Herb, In this example, Paul looks to the past to illustrate the doctrine of the sealing, not to the future. Is there any Biblical evidence which would demonstrate that the seal of Abraham is different from the sealing of the 144,000? Paul, an inspired interpreter of Scripture, usually refers to the past, specifically to Abraham, to illustrate salvation. Why? Because Abraham was justified prior to the law, by faith.

After Abraham was sealed through circumcision, he deceived Abimelech. Obviously, his faith failed ...again, just as it had previously when he deceived pharaoh regarding the same issue, his wife. There is no record, however, that Abraham was somehow unsealed, or his position with God was impacted negatively, by his weakness. One might expect that Abraham was sealed when he offered Issac upon the altar. That is not what Scripture teaches, however.

This is a very good illustration of Paul's remark that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Once God justifies and seals someone, that doesn't change, regardless of the person's failings.

Revelation tells us that the seal of God is the father's name. The same one who wrote Revelation records the words of Christ, regarding the Father's name:

11 ¶  "I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.
12  "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled (John 17).

It is through the father's name that the disciples, except the son of perdition, were kept from the world. None of those kept by the father's name would perish. Yet Peter, after he was spoken of in such a favorable light by Jesus, denied Him, not once, but three times. He would eventually write of those  "kept by the power of faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last times (1 Pe 1:15).

That, my friend, is what I would call theological shorthand. I mention this, not simply to be contradictory but to illustrate that there are other ways to interpret Scripture than what Adventism has been accustomed to.

Herb wrote:

--

. . . in their mouth was found no deceit (guile) for they are without fault before the throne of God." I can only read what it says. What do you good people think? Cheers, Herb 

--

Your view is an interesting take, it reminds of the days of my youth listening to those Revelation seminars. Where sadly no one was ever encouraged to dig a little deeper into the evangelists understanding. Thank God for blogs where we can dig deeper.

So my question would be to you Herb seeing we are not really going through any high pressure Revelation like scenarios does God see you or us other Christians as without fault now? Also do you follow the Lamb now?

I think you can see the problem here. If one says that the people who are in the high pressure Revelation scenario God saves them differently or expects something different from them. That of course does not make a lot of sense, particularly if we recognize that in some points in history Christians very clearly endured Revelation type scenarios. 

The problem with all this is that it leads people to move from the God who is our friend who is for us to a God who is out to get us and find fault. Obviously He will always see our faults, even if a person somehow got to be perfect he has years of faults there to be seen. Finding without fault only means that God does not hold anything against us because His goal is to be reconciled with us and let Him heal us. But there is this old Time Revelation seminar attitude which actually distorts God more then aids God. It is likely one of the reasons we don't hear you good old Adventists sermon as much anymore. Because they weren't really so good just old.

Herb,

I'd think more positively about your comments if "church plantings" were not painted here with a pejorative broad brush.

Church plantings, after all, are what enabled the Acts 2 church to grow. It was and always will be about community, agape love, Jesus, and His imparted Spirit, all of which can be experienced under a distinctive Adventist tent. This method isn't New Spirituality. It's classic Christianity.

In addition, I wonder how "new spirituality" fits with the traditional Adventist understanding of present truth--and Ellen White's manifold positive statements on growth, humility, and change. The danger, methinks, lies in pursuing extremes.

"There are two kinds of fool. One says, 'This is old, and therefore good.' The other says, 'This is new, and therefore better'" (John Brunner).

In a gripping account of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, Stories From Rwanda, Phillip Gourevitch observes that power consists of the ability to persuade others to inhabit your story of their reality. I am often reminded of Gourevitch's description when I ponder why the "message" fares so much better in Third World countries than in The West. The historical reality experienced by much of the Third World is the yoke of religious authority, particularly the authority of the Catholic Church in Latin America. Our "story" speaks powerfully to that reality. What second and third generation Adventists in North America have experienced as oppressive legalism offers deep freedom and security to the weary and oppressed in the non-Western world who have struggled for generations under the yoke of political-religious authoritarianism.

Yet in the West, the story of a monolithic, ecumenized Christian church, led by the Papacy, striking down religious liberty, is risible. It no more speaks to the reality that Americans experience than would the specter of a reconstituted Soviet Union threatening world domination speak to the geopolitical reality of today. I believe this is the primary reason that our 19th Century iteration of The Great Controversy story is not one that Westerners are willing to inhabit, because no matter how we package it and footnote it, it does not ring true to a culture dominated by secular forces hostile to Christianity in general and Christian authority in particular.  

Of course we can shout the "message" 'til we are blue in the face. Conviction and passion will always attract attention and gain converts among those who have empty, meaningless lives. regardless of whether the message is true (cf Roswellians and catastrophic AGW). But wouldn't it be far more effective to release our death grip on symbolic referents which no longer speak to the reality and fears experienced by those we would draw to Christ?

Forces of darkness, tyranny, and religious oppression are indeed an ongoing reality to which the Bible story speaks. But denominational divisions are far less consequential to that story than the gods of post-normal science and secular humanism which seek to obscure the truths of divine revelation in order to achieve world domination. Our SDA "story" totally fails to account for the two most powerful religious force in the world today - Islam and secular humanism. We have instead been foolishly preoccupied with the notion that we can discern impending apocalypse by examing the entrails of Supreme Court opinions written by Justice Scalia and his fellow conservative Catholics on the Bench. 

The Great Controversy is a story for the ages. But the cast of characters and the props occupying the stage change with history, and each generation must be sensitive to the stage and characters through which which the story is being played out. Present truth tells the story with the stuff of reality - not with wax figures from the stages of past generations.

Paul Tillich observed that the greatest challenge to Christian pastors and teachers is to present the Gospel in a way that requires the objects of our mission to encounter Christ as He is, not as we would have Him be, so that they will have to either accept or reject Him, rather than our theology of Him.  As Adventists have been presenting the Gospel for the past few decades, I'm afraid much of our audience, including many within the Church, have not been led to an encounter that forces them to accept or reject Christ. Rather, our story has enabled them to simply ignore Him. What a tragedy! I for one would vote against going back to the future of old paradigms. Who was it that cautioned against old wineskins?

Thanks Chris for noting the obvious. Indeed, I stroked "church plantings" too broadly without spelling out what I meant. Obviously, no one is against "church plantings" as a worthy and necessary work of the church. But the history of "cp's" in recent Adventist history surely raises serious questions as to the motives behind many. Most cp's in USA are focused on language groups, the more, the better. Those motivated by "a new way to worship" (think Celebration, etc) have not lasted very long (Australia, for example, as well as notable attempts in NAD). Some churches have tried to remake their current program with "seeker-friendly" marketing techniques and only misunderstandings develop, churches split, people are confused, etc.

You ask about the tsunami of jumping on the "emerging church," "new spirituality" alurement. Perhaps my next blog should take a look at all this. Message is still more important than the messenger,  To have a relationship with Jesus is more than a warm, fuzzy experience. For those looking for a relationship with a life-mate, the wise take some time investigating all the facts they can before they leap into a lifetime of feeling. Truth, doctrine, seems to be the first step in figuring out what one should turn his head and heart over to. What do you think? Cheers, Herb

Ron: As usual you are asking the right questions. The highest purpose before Adventists, a very clear goal, is to tell the truth about God. That is our commission, laid out in general terms in the Bible and more specifically in EGW. In all my theological studies, I don't find anyone who has this specific goal in mind. That is because  we have been given the clearest metanarrative in the world today--the Great Controversy Theme. God is not like the God promoted by most other religious voices. And we do not do Him any favor by using His name in any way that makes Him out to be the Exacting, Bookkeeping, Harsh Boss of the universe. He didn't make laws that could not be kept and He didn't ask for unselfishness while He would not be self-denying. The last verse in Rev 6 asks, in the midst of last-day troubles beyond anything seen on Planet Earth, "who shall be able to stand?"  Those who rise to the awesome challenge of facing Evil toe to toe, in these worst of the worst of times, will be people described in Rev 7 and 14. What do you think?  Cheers, Herb

"Many people become  sda when they hear the Sabbath truth .  I think our sermons should be born from bible study."

The inference is that Sabbath is the one doctrine that promotes and converts to Adventism.  This is the way it is nearly often achieved:  To "convert" to the Sabbath is to become Adventist. 

This has always been the manner as for the first 100 years, Adventists converted other Christians, often called "sheep-stealing" in contradiction to Paul who only converted pagans or non-believers to Christ.

If sabbath identifies Adventism, and it does, does it not also bring confusing salvation doctrine, unlike Baptists who have the "blessed assurance"?  Adventists have traditionall;y been taught (EGW) that many would lose their way on the celestial journey by not accepting her testimonies about refusing the "light" she had been given.  Millions were taught that one unremembered sin could cause them to be lost.  Where has this ever been officially rescinded?  Could it be while still elevating EGW to hagiographic status?

Elaine: You, as usual, get to the core quickly and why not! You and I know that many Saturday-keepers will miss the boat when the sheep and goats are sorted out. Adventist theology builds on the words of Jesus and is summarized well in Romans 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes [has faith] . . . For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, 'The just shall live by faith.'" And God will not be ashamed or declared unjust when He goes on record telling the universe who those people are who have let the gospel do its work in people who have truly trusted and willingly followed His plan for their salvation. After all, Sabbath-keeping, health-reforming, tithe-paying people once murdered Jesus!  Perfect, blessed assurance happens when we trust a God like that--a God who is very good at keeping His promises, IMO.  Cheers, Herb

Hi Herb

I don't think we have ever met but I am the Director for the Center for Church Planting for the South Pacific Division.

 I have come to this discussion late but was quite stunned when I read the comment under Prediction 3: Adventist churches that have been copying the seeker-friendly model (we call some of them ,"church plantings") will either fade, as many have in this country and in Australia especially, or they will follow the crowd into New Spirituality."

 Now I know anyone can make a prediction but the two phrases that intrigued me the most was was firstly that "seeker-friendly model (we call some of them "church planting.")  I have to say, I have never in any of my research (either in my Dmin paper on church planting or since )ever come across the concept that seeker-friendly churches were synonymous with church plantings.  Does that mean that since Adventists started as a church planting movement they started with seeker friendly churches. Maybe they started with seeker unfriendly churches - I have been to some of those! Could you show me your research for such an interesting statement?  

The second statement in prediction 3 that intrigued me was when you said that these "church plantings will...fade, as many have in this country and IN AUSTRALIA PARTICULARLY." ((my emphasis)  In 2009, four of the nine Conferences in Australia had their top or second top baptismal results from churches that had been  planted in the last 10 years.  I would be intrigued to see your evidence for your evidence naming "AUSTRALIA PARTICULARLY."  

If we don't keep planting churches, Adventists may be many things but they can't call themselves a movement.

I agree with Dr Douglass in his characterization of church planting. NB that he writes "some."

Too often, however, church planting is not about preaching the Gospel as understood in Adventism. Too often it is about pleasing people rather than turning hearts to Christ in a serious way. That's my take on it. Correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Douglass. Thanks for your exposition.

Truth Seeker

In 2002, my wife and I began planting a church that was theologically conservative, but methodologically progressive.  For ten years prior, I had attended dozens of confrences, leadership seminars, and church growth teaching events.  I read a few hundred books, and toured/visited various churches around the country.

I came to the conclusion that most churches, whether they be Willow Creek/Saddleback clones, or more traditional incarnations of churchiantiy, were not leading people into a passionate relationship with Christ.  We set out to plant a church that was distinctly Adventist, but focused on reaching out (going) to the unchurched.

Our leadership team developed core values and standards that raised the bar on what it meant to be a leader in an Adventist church.  At the same time, we lowered the bar for those who wanted to wander in the door and be a part of our community.  We also sought to teach our "regular" members, that subscribing to the 28 fundementals was not enough.  This was just the beginning of the journey, they needed to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

Many casual observers who visited were convinced that we were not an Adventist church - because of our methods.  Many disgrunteled Adventists who were dissatisfied with one of the other local churches, left us when they realized that we were calling them to a higher standard.  In the process we developed a great core of people who were solid Christian Seventh-day Adventists, who held a conservative view of our theological positions, but were willing to do whatever it took to reach out to the unchurched in our community.  

At the end of five years, we had an extended congregation of about 250 people - in small groups, service projects, and other activities.  We had an average attendance of 100.  There were about 40 committed individuals, most of them baptised members - and many new converts.  Our core team was made up of eight quality people.

Unfortunately, due to conference staffing formulas, full-time pastoral support was removed from this growing, experimental church a few years ago, and that church is just a shell of its former self.  The core team has moved on, and others have stepped into their places.

We were not traditional, but we were conservative.  We were probably more conservative than most Adventist churches you've ever attended, but we didn't look that way because of our methodology.  We were not liberal, but we were progressive.  There is a difference.

I don't offer this as a rebuttal to your article, because you raise some good points.  Many churches have sacrificed substance for marketing.  I just wanted to share with you that there are some good things happening in various unnoticed corners of Adventism.

We had hoped to have an additional five years to grow the church and meet both the conference staffing formulas, and to raise up a church that set a new paradigm of what it means to be spiritually healthy and numerically strong.  Spiritual health is a difficult metric to measure, and we often settle for the numerical measurements of "bodies, building, and bucks," but we can't throw the baby out with the bath water.

It is through experimentation and  fearless pioneering that we will be able to respond to Ellen White's call to find "new methods" of reaching people with the Gospel.

In the end, we came to realize that Common Ground was too far outside the mainstream to be acceptable within Adventism, and too much in the box to be appealing to the unchurched.  I'm hoping that through greater risk taking, we can support churches that are willing to step outside the box, while still remaining distinctly Adventist.

G

________________

Gary S. Walter

http://bit.ly/gwalter