I strongly suspect the Adventist experience Loren describes is mirrored in most other churches and denominations in North America.  In 2001-2003, I sang in the choir at a Disciples of Christ church in my town that has since closed its doors; the builidng has been taken over by an immigrant group of a different denomination.  The problem has less to do with an inefficient church bureaucracy (which, as Loren notes, is not much different than in E.G. White's day) than with a changing, more secular culture.  We may think the local church ought to be able to withstand a rapidly secularizing mainstream culture, but we may be wrong.  Blaming Adventist education is particularly shortsighted; it becomes ever more important as the larger culture becomes increasingly hostile to Christian values.

The biggest reason for churches dying, imho, and for schools lacking for kids in the seats, is the lack of pastoral visitation. Preachers clearly do not understand that they are indeed running a business and that the pastoral visitation is the marketing arm of that business. Most pastors think all they need to do is pontificate on Saturady morning, show up at the office, do some hospital visits, funerals, weddings and plan their next golf outing. In fact, some seem to spend more time planning thier golf outings than planning the future of thier parishes.

Until pastors WAKE UP and realize the true value of visitation, the trends in this article will not change, and WILL accellerate. Without fail.

I'm a PK. My father was successful in NOT having the trends that this author pines about - and it did it with VISITATION.

ANY company that lets it's sales force sit on their butts in their offices and not go out into the field and make sales contacts with clients, knows that their days are very much numbered. It's the same with churches.

Preachers are busy planning big meetings...too busy to visit their current interests or parishoners...and they can't understand why so many vote with their feet.

I just don't understand why conference officials and preachers just don't get it!

I agree with what dr2 says. I've seen Pastors doing all kinds of things except anything connected with the church.  Going to a few board meetings, preaching on Sabbath morning--they don't seem very busy. Most don't even attend prayer meeting any longer. But my very own Pastor has never taken the time to really get to know me. That is because he has never once visited me in my home in the five years I've been at his small church.

 Visiting the church members is one very important answer to this problem.

Loren, thanks for being bold enough to identify some of these critical issues. I am an educator having served in various positions in Adventist education. I have also been active in my local church as head elder elder/teacher for many years. I have one multi-part question for you:

Who evaluated your work as a pastor? What was the frequency of this assessment/evaluation? What "instrument" was used to determine your effectiveness as a pastor? How did it help you?

Thambi

This is a very important and relevant topic!! It is most essential to diagnose the issues. It is even more important to have a spirit-filled response to such issues. The fact that ministry, as we know it, is changing, need not necessarily be viewed as a cause for pessimism.

 I have attempted to list some of the spirit-filled responses to these issues from my perspective as an former Adventist pastor and currently an active and loyal church member.

a) Giving is a very personal barometer of our spiritual condition and of our love for God. Certainly, some do distrust church organization but if we love God and others, it will affect our hip pocket. Revival is the only cure.

b) Creative and bi-vocational ministry models will continue to be embraced by the church. The Spirit gifts for ministry and thereby summons people into the harvest. But this doesn't mean that there is only one way of preparing for ministry. God equips all types of people to serve as pastors and evangelists. Some will have a seminary education and a silver tongue. Others will be the product of Bible colleges. To paraphrase the wiseman, there is wisdom in a multitude of counsellors. We must be open to learn from each other, even the humblest of shepherds.

c) The Spirit gifts some for service to large sophisticated congregations. Others are gifted to minister to God's saints in more humble circumstances. It shows no lack of Godly ambition to wish to serve, without ever approaching the busy cities.

 d) Demographic redistribution of church members is a constant challenge to the church. We must expect revival and the accompanying evangelistic success across the demographic spectrum. God grant to our leaders wisdom to apportion resources to all areas. Revival can happen equally in the most mono-cultural or the most cosmopolitan places, and in the most rural and the most urban environments.

e) Yes, pastors often do become dispirited and burned out. The Spirit will lift them above their dispirited selves. This is intended to be more than pious rhetoric. One, they must feed on the Word and pray. Two, they must ensure that they feed the flock of God. It is God's Word that is the most potent resource to address conflict.

f) Many times our schools are not thriving because they have veered away from God given counsel and they are not used by those for whom they are intended. We must also develop financial mechanisms outside the official denominational structure to support our schools.

g) Instead of an aversion to beauracratic structures in the church, I dream of a day when the Spirit will enable us to utilize all the potential blessings in such management systems and in making necessary changes.

h) Public evangelism works in many parts of the world, not because they spend a small fortune on advertizing, as we do in the west. It works because people invite their friends, and those are the people who are most likely to respond the the call of the gospel.

dr2,

As I stated above it is vital to have a spirit-filled response to such issues. The fact that ministry, as we know it, is changing, need not necessarily be viewed as a cause for pessimism.  Rather it is a challenge for us to "gird up our loins."   

Loren, as usual, you hit the nail on the head.  There are some huge struggles in front of us that aren't going to be solved via programming a revival, nor by blaming any one thing.  We have systemic issues facing us - and they need to be addressed in a fashion that means business....  

Thanks for what you do man!

It seems to me that we need to look not an either-or model of ministry - lay led vs. paid clergy, but rather at a both-and model.  We need as many models out there as there are types of people.

rog 

We can continue to to discuss and bemoan about the lack of growth in the church but without defining the mission today, how will we be able to determine success.  Just as discussion about the situation in Afghanistan today, more and more troops can be sent, but no one has defined succinctly what the mission is, and until that is done, we cannot know if success is ever reached.

 The old definition of taking the Gospel to the world does not clearly define the meaning of Gospel.  For many it is a word meaning certain behavioral standards; keeping all the Ten Commandments; having the Seal of God (that, too, defined differently); and believing in EGW as the Spirit of Prophecy and making sure that the 7th day is observed religiously.

 If that is the Gospel, then only when all those criteria have been met, will it have been preached to the world.  It should be recognized that is an impossibility with the birth rate increasing far beyond human possibility. 

Can someone please define what the Gospel is and what is the mission of the church and how can it be measured adequately.

Hi, Chester. Nice to hear from you again—has been a long time. Hope your ministries are doing well.

I believe you make a valid point. There may be a good argument to be made for fewer clergy and more lay leadership, particularly in a denomination that is sectarian in nature—that is, feels itself unique and somewhat outside of the rest of Christianity.

From purely "what works" considerations, our attempt to straddle the line between sect and church, between popular theology and professional theology, may have been unhelpful to us. Historically, the seminary-trained professional clergy pattern was characteristic of quite a different kind of church, not necessarily coherent with our aims and purposes. As an American-born religion, our sociological ethos is probably closer to the LDS, who have only lay clergy.

You might like this piece from a few years ago called "Whose Church Is It, Anyway?".

Loren Seibold

Don't be "pessimistic" there Loren, the best days are yet ahead.  Good article to put the issues out there.  Change is usually difficult.  Yet planned change is generally always better.  I believe that all of us, at every level of church structure, either in denominational employment or as lay workers, need to recapture the Missio Dei and regain a contemparary vision for Adventism.  And let it begin with me in my discipleship:  at my devotional time, in my family, in my church, in my calling.  As Adventism does this collectively, structures will change for the better, giving will increase, resources will be used missionally, Christian education will be financed properly, and powerful will be this movement of God.    Good discussion.

We really can't solve a problem until we look at the underlying reasons for the problem. Perhaps the problem in this case is the assumption that the way we practiced ministry to begin with was the proper or best way.

What should it tell us that Christianity is steadily declining in the Western world which has for several hundred years used a very similar ministry proposition between the different Protestant denominations?

The article reflects a symptom of a larger problem...a larger problem in  Protestantism and Christianity itself. It became a religion based upon hierarchy where the most spiritual and competent told the congregation what to do, what to think and provided pat answers to the worlds questions. Information changes have shown that the leaders are not more spiritual, not more competent and have poor answers to the worlds questions. We don't teach people to be spiritual because we don't know what it means we only know it as a goal and those with a fundamentalist viewpoint have defined spiritual to be what they are and if you don't believe that you are not spiritual.

In essence we have turned Christianity from the relationship with God and man into series of acceptable beliefs, with those accepting the beliefs being thought of as the "good christians". Christians have been their own worst enemies for hundreds of years. And it has produced a splintered Christian church and a lot of people who don't think that the religion has too much to offer anymore.

In simple terms we have painted ourselves into a corner and the way out has not really even been looked at as we simply put a few more coats of paint on the floor that still has a few streaks. Thinking that if we simply do what we have been doing but do it a little better everything will work out all right.

"we have turned Christianity from the relationship with God and man into series of acceptable beliefs."

 This is a perfect description of Adventism:  In the mid-19th century, those from other churches "discovered" and adopted a set of beliefs, and it became a church that defined itself as having the "truth," which was not a change in relationship to their God, but a particular, and peculiar interpretation of Scripture which became their unique difference.  Nothing about relationship, but everything about a set of beliefs, beginning with the "code-breaker" of discovering a date on which Christ would return;  unknown to all previous Christians, but magically discerned by a few men who had only the KJV and no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek. 

With this "remarkable" discovery, Adventism was born by proclaiming a specific date for the Lord's return--in total violation of Scripture that proclaimed only God knew and man did not.

After that disappointment, one individual had a "vision" giving a "new" interpretation that it was really something that occurred in heaven (impossible to prove or disprove)  and the few faithful souls that had not already left, gathered around to study more.  Finding that the seventh day was given at Sinai (overlooking the fact it was never given to anyone but the Israeites) they now had a new and very different religion:  the seventh day should now be a rest day for all of God's people. 

As Loren Siebold has written:  the four "unique doctrines" of Adventism are all straight from the Hebrew Bible, none are to be found in the NT.   They have overlooked the NT, or Christian Bible, for their doctrines and returned to Judaism to find their doctrines.  Adventism can only be unique by ignoring the NT and its definitive statements that there are no differences in people, and that the law that was a schoolmaster has now become obsolete and replaced by Christ.  Claiming both the Law and Christ as equal is impossible.  It is either:  The Law or Christ, there is no other way given in the NT.

"Church members aren't tossing their money into the kettle as readily as they used to. They'll still give, but to what they want to, not to what we tell them to.

I don't look at my church members' individual giving; they're grown-ups, I've reasoned, and their stewardship is on their consciences. But I did ask my treasurer, "Who is paying tithe and offerings?" She said, "If it weren't for the little old ladies in church, you'd have a lot less tithe." "

 This confirms my own observations. The young Turks who wish to change the church into their image apparently do not give readily assuming Loren's remarks are correct. I find an article from 1978 as instructive:  http://greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pier-final.php  and this as well by Robert Pierson-  http://www.greatcontroversy.org/editorial/ed4pie_nocompromise.html

Truth Seeker

DR2, while it may contradictory, your father's visitation program was actually one of the significant contributors to the problem of member disconnection from the mission of the church and the church itself. That is because we members became dependant on our pastors to do everything for us with the result that we were no longer responsible for the ministry or mission of the church.  My church was formed around the concept of NOT having more than a part-time pastor.  We see him once a month to hear a sermon and maybe for a meeting somewhere else in the month.  Our members are responsible for everything from cleaning the church to visiting the sick and community outreach.  Our church is vibrant and growing. 

I think we should fire all our conference and union administrators and 90% of our pastors.  Yes, some churches would die as a result. But others would revive because they would discover the infusion of Holy Spirit power God wants us to experience both individually and corporately. That is the revolution our church needs.

Marksps, your remarks presuppose that it is essential for the church to have both a bureaucratic structure and professional pastors.  Neither concept is supported by the model for the church in the New Testament where there was no clergy class and no bureaucracy.  What they had was total dependance on the Holy Spirit for empowerment and guidance.  That ministry model turned the known world upside-down!

The functional reality is that church bureaucracy sucks money out of local congregations, demotes members to servants of the pastor and discourages members from seeing the empowerment and guidance of the Holy Spirit.  So it should be no surprise that people put less in the offering plate!  It is when we seek the Holy Spirit first, foremost and always that issues like how much people put in the offering plate get cured.  

Our message carries its own dynamic. It needs no "hype" or human promotion. It needs to be understood in its own biblical dynamic and the Holy Spirit will bear witness to its truthfulness as it is presented by way of the bible.

Bill Sorensen

"As Loren Seibold has written:  the four "unique doctrines" of Adventism are all straight from the Hebrew Bible, none are to be found in the NT.   They have overlooked the NT, or Christian Bible, for their doctrines and returned to Judaism to find their doctrines."

Elaine is referencing a piece I wrote for Spectrum called "Sorting Out the Testaments". While it is indeed the case that our proof texts for some of our main doctrines are in the Old Testament, I also believe we can find much of what we want to say in the New Testament. We just haven't found it as convenient. I always tell people that Luke 4:16 is probably more important for a Sabbath-keeping Christian than Exodus 20, because it is a Christian affirmation of Sabbath-keeping. Christians read the Old Testament, but we always view it through the lens of the the gospels. To jump around that and take Old Testament verses as authoritative without a New Testament mandate is poor hermeneutics. 

Loren 

As a minister's wife, I believe thebest answer IS congregationalism! Let each church decide what works best for it and do it with enthusiasm because it's their idea.  I think this would energize both pastors and members. Perhaps the rest of the world isn't ready for this, but I think North America is. Having worked as an administrative assistant in a conference office for a number of years, I honestly think most of what is done there could be done just as well by an active, engaged church. Think of the money this would free up for individual churches to do ministry. Maybe there should be one person in charge of the Pathfinder and summer camping program, and one person could field any problems that come up in a conference and be a spiritual resource for pastors, but beyond this let the churches handle things. If a large church, for instance, wants to have a school, it would have to have enough parents to support the idea. A smaller school could have some sort of home-school coop. Whatever suits the needs of an individual church. Revolutionary thought, I know!

Carrol

That the early Adventists found their doctines from the OT indicates that they focused more on that part of the Bible, than the NT, which is the Bible for Christians.  Without the NT there would be no Christians; but with the OT there would be Jews and those who use their scriptures for their doctrines.  There is no command in the NT for tithe-paying, dietary laws or Sabbath observance and accompanying rules.  The interpretation of the IJ from Daniel is a huge error from which the church has never recovered.

"I also believe we can find much of what we want to say in the New Testament. We just haven't found it as convenient."  Yes, the emphasis should be on "much" as there is nothing in the earliest NT writings that either reinforces Sabbath for gentiles, and Jesus lived and died as a Jew, obedient to all the commands.  Who gave Paul the authority to eliminate nearly all the Jewish rituals and commands for the gentile church.  If we followed Jesus' practices, we would still demand circumcision and the feasts and sacrifices.  The Christian church became a gentile church by the end of the first century and the Jewish laws were never made to apply to them.  It is Adventists who "discovered" them from the OT, not from the NT and were quite inconsistent in the application and choices.

Loren 

 In fact, the opposite is true. The new testament is built on the old. It only adds some clarification to what was already known and understood by true believers of the past. Had the Jews not corrupted the old testament, many would have readily received Jesus as the Messiah. So Jesus' purpose was to restore what was already known. The new testament writers knew and understood and affirmed this principle.

And just because something is not repeated in the New Testament is no reason to reject it. The NT was not written in a vaccuum. It assumes you already know and understand much of the OT information. It simply places all this pre information into the context of Jesus as the Messiah. Showing how He fulfilled all the OT promises. There was no need to re-affirm anything. It was more important to show what was no longer necessary than to affirm what was already clearly mandated. Thus, the ceremonial law was shown to have no value in the new dispensation. And it in no way implied the moral law was negated because of this reality. While the Sabbath was discussed by Jesus, it was always in the context of how to keep it, not whether it was still a moral imperative.

The bible is so convoluted today, even in Adventism, it scarcely has any consistent meaning and mostly impossible to understand in any flowing continuity. Novices try to formulate bible doctrines and destroy any biblical dynamic in all areas of truth. Confusion is the norm. And the people "worship, they know not what."

A typical false dilemma is the ongoing statement that "we are not saved by obedience to the law." And then the law is presented as "fruit of salvation" with the intent to undermine its full and dynamic function in sanctification. The legal aspects of redemption are used to undermine the moral imperatives of salvation.

We are not required to emulated what the ceremonial law typifies. But this in way sets aside the moral mandates of the law which are just as much a requirement for salvation as faith in Christ. This failure to "rightly divide the word of truth" concerning the legal and moral aspects of redemption is continuing to weaken the church and undermining the full dynamics of evangelism. How can you call people out of "Babylon" when it is affirmed that obedience to the law is not salvational? You can't. While obedience is not a pre-condition, it is most certainly a post condition. And to claimed you are "saved by faith alone" with no intent to obey the law as a moral imperative, is not faith. It is presumption. And it needs to be stated as such with a clear qualified statement on the true meaning of faith and works.

 Bill Sorensen

Bill,

You are right in critiquing that last sentence: it was hastily dashed off. (Always resist the temptation to write on a website when you're tired! I've gotten in more trouble that way!...) In the article I referenced in my comment, I have a more nuanced discussion of the relationship between the testaments. There is indeed much more to the Old Testament for Christians than just whether the New Testament mandates it. 

By the way: can one create href links in these comments? I used the usual <a href= etc. ... > set, but it didn't seem to work for me.

Loren 

Bill, As I'm sure you don't know, the law in the NT refers to the teachings of the OT regarding faith in Christ. Since that is the point of the OT, obedience is the response of faith to the promises of God, as in the case of Abraham.

Obedience to the law = faith in Christ, get it?

Loren, I wonder why you did not inquire about specific tithing practices by members of your church. Were you aware of who was in prayer meeting and vespers, if you had them?

How does a pastor measure the spirituality and needs of congregational members? I've seen a lot of stuffed suits parading around on Sabbath morning who never or rarely set foot in prayer meeting. Why? While it is possible that they are out giving Bible studies, it is more likely that they are home watching reruns of the Sopranos or Sex and the City. Yet these same people, who have no time for the spiritual activities of the church, are the very ones determining the direction in which the church moves.   

I attended the Church of Christ, Boston Movement for a couple of years. On prayer meeting night, which had a large turnout, small groups assembled and their leaders collected tithes and offerings. The small group leaders were responsible for collecting tithe. If a member of their group did not pay, they were counselled. Tithing wasn't optional for members. Although I'm not entirely certain, I believe that members who were recalcitrant were trimmed from the church. Because the church had meetings at various places, if you were out of the loop, you couldn't fellowship. You would not know where the chuch was meeting. 

The lack of accountability in Adventism has weakened the church greatly. A lot of people are struggling.

 I went to a Bible study  in a private home one night and was quite impressed with the presentation by a lay member. I was shocked to learn that he was having an affair with the wife of another man, yet both he and his paramour were at the Bible study together. These people were in desperate need of spiritual care and guidance. As far as I know, both were in good standing as SDA members. They were openly involved in an adulterous relationship. Why? No accountability.

In the case above, the adulterous couple and her husband all turned out for the meeting of an offshot leader. The speaker, a defrocked SDA minister, was compelled to handle the situation to avoid a violent confrontation. Must things get to that point before clergy get involved in the lives of church members?

A friend of mine became pregnant out of wedlock. A group of concerned brethren came to her home one night and wanted her to make a public confession to the church on Sabbath morning. "Sure," she said, "as soon as Elder so and so confesses to sleeping with Deacon so and so's wife."

How was it that she knew about the situation she described and the Pastor did not? Or did he? Obviously, the "concerned brethren," who wanted to humiliate her publicly, knew. They sheepishly left her home. Again, no acountability. 

I'd be interested in reading your perspective. Just how deep should a pastor get into his congregation's personal affairs?

One could literally write a book about this tragedy. However as I recall the Seventh-Day Adventist Church is a prophetic people. We aren't going anywhere! Now the servant of the Lord said that "some churches and whole conferences would be closed," and I gather that those who don't understand the mission of the church will ultimately fail. I believe the leading cause of unsuccessful ministers and ministries is a lack of focus for our mission. We have not learned how to incorporate the needs of the community into the overall mission of the church but rather have sacrificed the "Message" for other tangent ministries. We need to get back to our Mission and that is the preaching of the everlasting gospel of Jesus Christ and stop playing church. We are not a business we are a Movement. And by the grace of God, we need to get moving!

Sis. Elaine,

I don't agree with your assessment about the beginnings of our Movement. You can't have a relationship without beliefs. The Word of God declares that before we even come to God we must first believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. Believe, is the verb that was used. Believe in what Elaine? What is that relationship based on? I here all this talk about relationship with Christ and when you ask people what is the basis of that relationship they don't provide any information. 1 John 2:4 states very plainly that he that saith he knoweth him and keepeth not his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him. So please educate me, what is that relationship that you speak of based on? There are a whole lot of professed people out there professing that they have this relationship with Jesus but they don't keep His commandments, so please rectify your statement.

"You believe in the one God--that is creditable enough, but the demons have the same belief" (James 2:19).

No one has yet shown what a "relationship" with an idea would be.  No one has seen God, yet all the people claiming to have a relationship is curious.  One can read the Bible and develop an idea of God, and everyone will arrive at a different view--which is why there are so many Christian denominations.  Whose relationship can be judged or evaluated.  It's easy to talk, much harder to live with love to your neighbor, which, as Christ said, was the fulfillment of the Law.   "I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day."  Talk is easy, living one's beliefs is where the rubber hits the road.

Carrol,

You've really gone and stepped in it now by suggesting that Congregationalism is the answer!  You've also given the proverbial nail a huge whack right on the head.  After all, that's what the Apostolic church was.  Belivers didn't rely on organization and institutions for permission and guidance because they were empowered by the Holy Spirit.  Oh, that we could become so Congregational!

Loren, I'm one of those pastors that responded to that Best Practices article you wrote.  I was in the midst of great conflict in my church, and you described the situation beautifully in that article.  In the meantime, I've since been terminated from my position.  The reasons given, were in direct conflict with the training I received in the Seminary.

I was taught to do outreach, and let the congregation take care of the inreach.  I believe that the local church is a standing army, ready to do battle against the Gates of hell; but unfortunately, the local church I was called to pastor didn't see it that way.

While I appreciate the people who have commented here, who have implied that pastors are not putting in the time and are not meeting the needs of the local congregations, this is exactly the point you made when you said theire was a fundemental dichotomy between how pastors and the laity see the pastor's role.  I met the same accusations.  Yet amazingly, I was working 60-70 hour weeks.

I'm not going to get into how we should, or should not be utilizing pastors.  However, I just want to thank you for identifying the issues.  We have some serious issues that need some serious consideration.

When I look around the country to see where my peers are, I see very few of the best and the brightest remaining in fullt-time pastoral ministry.  Some have taken overseas calls, some have started their own preaching ministries, some have moved into administrative roles, some have "technecally" left the denomination to plant churches, and some have simply dropped off the map.  Why is this?  Why are they no longer serving in the field?

It isn't because they are bad pastors, and it isn't because they don't have a passion for people.   The problems go deep, and unless we remain satisfied with the status quo, we will continue to get the same results we're currently getting.

@gwalter
A not so perfect man with a Dad Attitude
http://bit.ly/gwalter

I grew up attending a fairly well-to-do church; a lot of doctors, business people, etc. were the ones who supported the church and the local large academy and elementary school.  Back then as a kid I heard that either the church was struggling or the schools were struggling on a ministry level and financial level.

Each Sabbath as I attended church, I felt the church was "packed" most of the time and there were a lot of people in each Sabbath School.  Cars were parking out into the street and across the street because there the church parking became too full.  Nowadays when I visit that church, there's more than enough parking each Sabbath and the church isn't as packed as it was in the 80s. 

I have visited non-denominational churches and there are times when their churches are having to hold 3 or 4 different services because there's not enough room to sit everyone and the church probably sits at least 350 people.  Some of the Adventist congregation have switched to these churches (maybe not necessarily because they don't want to go to an Adventist church or associate with the Adventists). 

What's the actual reasoning now?  I have a few ideas because before I have felt about skipping out from the Adventist church arena and attending these large non-denomintaional churches instead; I haven't done so, but I've been close.

 1) I believe that a lot of the younger people (youth, collegiates and young adults) are not being reached out to or being used in the church.  This right here hurts the church's ministry.  As Loren wrote:
"A majority of churches in my conference have almost no members between 15 and 35. The median age in the NAD church is 51 and rising."  I can tell you from personal experiences that us younger folk are not being heard or focused upon or if we are being heard we're not being taken seriously.  It's depressing and very immature that politics, the older people and their money are more important in decision making than to discuss "How can we help the younger people stay and become more connected in the Adventist church?"

2) I have also seen that there are some ridiculous money spending habits especially in the smaller churches, the churches that don't have the money to spend any way they want to.  For instance, one small church I know of had a NY Times newspaper delivered because the church secretary wanted to read it.  Okay, why can't she go online to read it at home or pick one up at the local grocery newsstand?  Why did the church have to pay for it?  Sure it may be less than $100 a year for a subscription, but this $100 could be used for ministerial items instead of the secretary's desire to read a newspaper she had other ways to read.

3) The economy is taking a different approach to giving; I have a friend who just admitted that he rarely pays tithe but he pays for his child's SDA tuition and that in his mind is his contribution to the church.  There are a lot of people who are cutting back or giving to the SDA ministry in different ways than just to tithe AND to church budget AND to ADRA AND to Amazing Facts AND... they pick and choose instead of combining them all.

A lot of the above items is how we've gone from a motivated church organization to a laid back, slowly progressing church.  We have a calling brothers and sisters to not just try to give the 3 Angels message to the world but we need to remind each other in our own churches, schools and hospitals that Jesus is soon to arrive to take us home with Him.  We need to start raising the bar in our slacked ministries.  For example, I heard a few weeks: "Since Doug Batchelor teaches about Revelation, why should our church spend money to teach about it?"  Why should we leave things to one person/group?  We all need to take part in the ministry of God and Jesus' second advent.

I've been advised about 11 times now that I can remember that I should become a pastor; well if I did go to seminary and become a pastor, trust me, there will be people who will not like my style of preaching the Lord's message because every day of every week with a special emphasis on Sabbath I will have revival meetings instead of church services and sermons.  I want my church organization to not just be a place to come and sit in, but a place that is active, outgoing, after the Sabbath worship service a bunch of people feed the homeless in different parts of the city instead of going home to take naps.

We need to wake up and I think right now in our world today we need to get a doucing of cold water on ourselves and our church leadership (local pastors to the GC).