Further Thoughts On Restructure of Our Divisions

This union of churches idea is interesting to me. It appears as though it simply eliminates the conference level and with it a lot of expense. There definitely seems to be an upside with what looks like a lot of cost savings.

However, I wonder about the ramifications of such a move. Will such a move effectively eliminate the voice of the layperson from directing the church. I mean now, the conference is elected by lay people and the workers in a conference. However, will eliminating the conference level leave those lay people, and workers who are not politically powerful, from the table of decision making? Is such a move the best?

It is true that the discussions and decisions have to be made on how this will work, but I do wonder about whether the average pastor and average lay person will have as much say in the leading of these Union of Churches and in the leading of their local conference.

For that reason alone, I wonder if the elimination of the Union level might be brought to the table as a cost saving device as well. How many of us even interact with out union officials. We do see the conference officials often, but the union? Division, GC?

I'm all for monetary savings and am not philosophically against restructure, but I do think we need to be very careful about how we consolidate power. If done in the wrong way, we will never be able to get it back.

The Conference Level And Re-Structure At General Conference 2010

I thought it interesting that the last Adventist News Network is reporting that

The revised Church Manual also introduces a glossary of frequently used terms, including a definition of "union of churches," a church governance structure in which a group of local congregations reports directly to a union, eliminating the conference or mission level of administration. Delegates will approve several recently formed unions of churches at Session, as well as consider whether to expand the structure's use.

As Samuele Thomas Sr. used to say when he preached..."Did you Get it? or Did You Miss it?"

Eliminating the Conference Level

Yes there seems to be talk about eliminating the conference level altogether. Now if you are a loyal reader of SabbathPulpit.Com, this would not have taken you by surprise. We talked about this four years ago in 2006. I discussed Harold Lee's article on this page.

I talked about the annual council when this came up at this link. That article also has a pdf document of the different proposals for structural change.

In this article, I looked at 5 different options talked about in that document.

Finally, I talked about what structural change might mean for the regional (black) conferences at this link.

Well, it is here folks. There will be discussion about a so-called "union of Churches" which is simply a union conference. There is talk about eliminating the conference level.

Can We Afford Both Levels?

To be honest, I think that we can no longer afford nor do we need both the local conference and the union conference levels. It is a throwback to an earlier era. My only concern is that the members of the local church still retain its ability to affect and vote for its local leadership whether that be a "Union of Churches" or a "Conference." This re-structuring cannot be a way to remove the ability of the member to participiate in the choosing of the direction of the local church and the level right above the local church.

But after having said that, there is a lot of duplicate leaders and offices that really need trimming. I mean do we really need a religious liberty director at the conference level? Don't all the hard cases go up to the Union anyway? Do we really need the local conference Sabbath School leader? And if we do need both of them, how about a union leader and his staff, and then a conference leader and a regional conference leader if it is in the east. No we need restructuring.

I Hope This Is Not Simply A Power Grab

I suspect a lot of tentative decisions and discussions have taken place on this subject. It is my only hope that whatever happens, it will not amount to simply a power-grab by a few leaders, but it will be a principled decision for the good of our World Church by people at all levels of the church including the local conference and local church levels.

The Adventist Basics In Adventist Preaching

You know those who play Jazz music know of a concept of "standards." These are the basic songs that you must know if you are to be an acceptable musician. They consist of old tried and true songs that have been passed down from generation to generation of musicians. Musicians don't have to play it in exactly the same way, but they must know the "tunes" and be able to play them when called upon.

The last few months, I have been looking at some old sermon material that my father has showed me. Specifically they are the very old book Public Evangelism by J. L. Shuler published in 1939. In addition there is the book Evangelistic Methods: Step by Step by Fordyce Datamore published in 1957. And then there is God Made An Evangelist by E. E. Cleveland published in 1994.

These books primarily are "Evangelistic" sermons and methods for doing evangelism. Many of the principles are still being used, although modified, by evangelists today. There are a lot of things of interest in these materials to me, a seminary trained homilititian, and we will discuss these over time on the website.

Basic Sermons Passed Down

But one thing that was striking is the consistency of the sermons in the books. There were a number of basic sermons that seemed to be passed down from generation to generation of Adventist Evangelist. There were a few new sermons or different sermons, but in general they were the same sermons with only a change in sermon title and/or illustrations. Shuler even suggests that the great Adventist Evangelist should be always on the lookout to have modern and appropriate titles to "speak on the old-time truths of the message."

Shuler's Daniel 2 sermon was titled The Fate of Europe. This became simply titled "Daniel 2" by Datamore. Finally Cleveland gave it "The Great Prophetic Metal Man. Does He Live Today?" Shuler added other possible titles as "Seven Words That Changed History." Those words were "They shall not cleave one to another." And so on with other sermons like the Second Coming, Millennium, and State of the Dead.

Of particular interest was the Sabbath. Here evangelists would use titles like "What Day Should Christian's Keep" and "The Missing Text" which goes through all the texts that refer to Sunday in the Bible. These sermons took on titles like Mary's Mother's Birthday and "The Father Didn't, The Son Wouldn't, The Apostles Couldn't. Who Did."

What is interesting though is that while the titles changed, the basic idea behind each of these sermon/lectures was a number of texts that would be presented to prove the validity of the claims of the Evangelist. These basic sermons were the "standards" or the "Adventist Basics" of the Adventist Evangelist. (note: Instead of using the term "standards" which has a specific meaning among Adventists, I will use the term "Adventist Basics" for understanding.)

Listen Over And Over Again

Daniel 2 had to be preached under whatever title. Daniel 7 had to be preached as well. The history of the papacy had to be preached. Revelation 12, 13, and 14 as well. These were the "Adventist Basics."

And just like a jazz audience who have heard the standards over and over again, they never tire of hearing them. So the Adventist audience who have heard Daniel 2 wonder how the preacher will present it this time.

But the "standards" or "Adventist Basics" did not just include the books of Daniel and Revelation. In the 16 week meeting the preacher had to preach why the preacher accepts the Bible as the Word of God. There were also sermons on Family life like Cleveland's "Marriage-The Secret to a Happy Home Life." In addition, all of them had sermons on "confession, repentance, and forgiveness."

Building The Framework of Adventism

These basic building block sermons were a solid part of the preaching in tents. They gave a solid foundational understanding of the framework of Adventism. However, in today's world, 16 weeks 6 nights a week will not work. There are just too many nights. That meeting has been truncated to 5 weeks 4 nights a week. And thus many sermons had to be removed. Some of them were the standards. And thus now we are in an interesting position where these sermons that everyone had heard. Whether they agreed with the position or not, they at least have heard them. Now we have generations of Adventists who don't know the "Adventist Basics." They don't know the basic Adventist argumentation. Now these "Adventist Basics" are hidden away in theological texts. Books like "1844 Made Simple" is simply an expansion of a Bible study that every Adventist had heard in the evangelistic meetings. It was an "Adventist Preaching Standard."

I do not think that we can simply go back to the past. Neither do I think that we can or should attempt a 16 week, 6 night a week meeting in 2010, but we have to find a replacement for that meeting that will pass on the "Adventist Basics" to another generation.

The Impossibility of Separating Doctrine From Life

Many Christians separate doctrine from their daily lives. This idea is manifested in the idea of "doctrine is less important than relationship." Some who each this argue that doctrine is good and fine, but a personal, vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ is more important. This is the common way that this is taught. We hear about how Adventists know too much doctrine, but don't know the Man behind the doctrine.

There is definitely value in reminding people that the Christian walk is not merely a thing of the "head," but it is also a thing of the "heart." I think this is a part of what these sisters and brothers are preaching when they push this idea, but it has the side effect of making people think that a proper and good relationship to God can be obtained devoid of doctrinal understanding. Often little definition is given for this "relationship with Jesus" beyond a comparison to a friendship.

This idea makes doctrine something that is "nice to know." It is not important or even valuable. It is an impediment. What this view misses however is the is a valid definition of doctrine. Doctrine is not esoteric, useless, or irrelevant facts. Doctrine is simply codifying our understanding of God. Certainly it will change as we learn more, but it is simply not possible to not have doctrine. We may have a doctrine we have not thought about much. We may have doctrinal understandings that center in irrelevancy, or we may have doctrinal understandings that focus totally on things that are relevant to daily lives. We simply cannot dispense of doctrine.

While it is true that having a growing connection to the Divine life is more important than merely knowing about the Most High, it is also true that one cannot fully separate our learning about God from our real relationship to God.

In short, if you are growing in your relationship with your wife, would you stop learning about your wife? Will you get to a point that you no longer study to find out what makes her happy? Do you stop learning about her using the tools you have access to? How is that any different from learning all you can about God?

Ultimately it is a false dichotomy. You will not be growing in this "relationship with Jesus" if you have no desire to grow in your knowledge of Jesus Christ (Doctrine). In fact, how can you even know the difference between the false Jesus and the true Jesus unless you have some kind of learning to back it up. I know my wife immediately from her voice, from the way she looks, and from the things she does. How is it that I can be ready for the last day when God will have a people who "follow the lamb withersoever he goest." (Revelation 14:4) If I marginalize or put down the very pursuit of knowledge of what Jesus is doing and will do in this world and in my own life.

In short, the separation of doctrine from life is not a viable position. The true position is to live out your doctrine. Live out your understanding of God. We don't have to choose between putting an ephemeral and undefined "relationship with Jesus" above our understanding of Jesus. Neither do we have to choose to ignore doctrine altogether while glorifying this disconnected idea of "relationship." We can go another road that is a doctrinally informed and lived life that is empowered by a growing relationship with the Most High.

Thinking About Camp Meeting

[caption id="attachment_2252" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Photo by Boksi"][/caption]Being a son of an Adventist preacher, I will never forget the camp meetings. We were out there. We were out at the camp when my father and the other workers worked to get the camp in shape for the visitors and members. I can still remember seeing preachers who you normally see gracing pulpits instead cleaning stalls throwing away trash and cleaning kitchens.

I then remember the encampment itself. There were programs for the youth. I still remember the "happy time tent." It was an era when little kids could roam and discover the landscape of our old "Camp Shady Hill."

I remember walking around everywhere. I can remember getting chiggers and mosquito bites. I can remember seeing frogs and other animals as we invaded their teritory. Those were great days.

Then the meetings themselves. Of course you got to hear the other preachers from the conference. You could hear T.A. Mcneally and Butch Rice and the rest of the preachers out there. But then you could also hear the best of the preachers outside of the conference. people like Henry Wright, C. D. Brooks, E. E. Cleveland, and Calvin Rock would come in. Then there would be singers some you have heard of like Walter Artist and some who you may not have heard of although well known out side,

Camp meeting was more than meetings, it was a time to interact with the children of the other workers. Folks who I still remember and many who I even interact with on occassion today. It was a time to become a community. We were a conference. But more than that, it was a time for many, who find themselves at very remote areas, to recognize that there were more Seventh-day people than just the 30 or 40 who meet at their congregaton.

It was a time to be reminded of who we are and why we are here. It was a time to be encouraged that the end is still coming and Jesus is still coming again.

I sometimes wonder what the moving of camp meeting online means for camp meeting. Certainly it is a different era than the era of a 10 year old kid running around "Camp Shady Hill" in the 1970s, but I miss it. Don't get me wrong, I love the ability to turn on camp meeting online. I did it this year. I looked at Kentucky-Tenn, South Central, and 3abn camp meetings online. I love seeing these preachers and musicians sing and preach to the glory of God. I love the lack of heat and travel. In short, I love the convenience.

In an era when camp meeting attendance during the week seems to be going down, one wonders if the one week on an encampment makes sense financially, but I must admit that I will miss it if it goes away. And I will always remember singing and doing crafts at the "happy time tent."

TULIP, Calvinism, and The Great Controversy Theme

[caption id="attachment_2229" align="alignleft" width="274" caption="John Calvin"][/caption]Herbert Douglass, in the book Fork in the Road has written a helpful summary of why Calvinism and Adventism cannot be unified on the idea of what the Gospel means. You may not know it, but Calvinists are the "big wigs" in the evangelical world. From popular scholars like R. C. Sproul to pastors like D. James Kennedy and John McAurthur. Certainly there are some who do not agree with all of the positions of the Calvinistic cause, but many of the popular authors and preachers in the Evangelical world are Calvinists.

The Five Points

By Calvinists, I mean those who hold to the five points of Calvinism, or at least most of the points. This is often referred to as TULIP, In short these are:

• Total Depravity – When humanity sinned it was placed in a position where they can do nothing but sin. It is sometimes called “total inability.”


• Unconditional Election – God unconditionally elected some to be saved.


• Limited Atonement – God only died and provided the atonement for salvation to those who were elected to be saved.


• Irresistible Grace – The grace that saves cannot be resisted by the human being it is given to.


• Perseverance of the Saints – Once you are saved, there is nothing that can remove you from that saved condition.
  

Where the System Begins

They begin their system with the idea of God’s sovereignty. God is ultimately in charge and can do anything God wants to do. No one else has freedom. God alone has freedom. Due to total depravity, we cannot chose anything but sin. Thus God must choose those who will be saved and thereby will be choosing those who will be lost. Humanity can not judge God, the saved should be happy that they are among the ones that God has chosen to save.

Adventism’s Starting Point

Adventism begins with the concept of God giving humanity Freedom. We say that God has given the gift of freedom to all of humanity. We get to choose whether we will follow Satan or God’s government. This gift of freedom has been given to the entire universe of beings, according to this idea.

Interestingly God uses this world to demonstrate where Satan’s principles will lead. Thus God chooses to demonstrate the rightness of God's cause in this system.

Finally, God has chosen all of us in his son to eternal life, and those who do not reject God’s rule of love will be saved at last.

In the end, we have one scheme beginning with God’s sovereignty that makes human freedom impossible. On the other end we have humanities freedom as being something given to humanity by a sovereign God. God wants us to choose the righteous government. But the Calvanistic system makes such a choice impossible unless the one has already been predestined to salvation.

Finally, in the Adventist system, God allows Satan’s choice to play out before the entire universe. Freedom of choice is an important component of Adventism while it is impossible under Calvinism.

Can’t Synthesize the Two

While there are certain similarities between the two groups, and both can recognize that one can be saved while agreeing with the other position. But like my Calvinist friend told me after a long conversation, "You may be saved...but you are wrong on this issue." So we see that we can’t synthesize the two views. And why would we want to? Either the Calvinist view is right, or the Adventism view is right, or perhaps logically another option is correct, but all of them are not right. Because of this, it is time for Adventists to stop getting our “understanding of the love of God” from folks who do not accept at all the freedom of humanity which is at the foundation of the Great Controversy that we preach. It is time to decide if we are Adventists or not. If not, then Calvinism might be an acceptable alternative, go ahead and look into it, but if you are going to be Adventist, then it is time to stop running behind the evangelical teachers who have different presuppositions than we have. If we are going to be Adventists, be Adventists.

They Don’t Mix

No Adventism and Calvinism don’t mix. It is time to stop acting as if it does. It is time to stop acting like the contradictions that we are currently spouting are actually “paradoxes.” It is time to stop telling our people that our evangelical friends have Jesus and we have the law, so go to them to get Jesus and come to us to get the law! No! If we ain’t preaching Jesus, then we need to start preaching him in the context of the message that God has given to us. Be not deceived our Calvinist brothers and sisters do have a place for the law, and it is an important place, but it is just not the same place we have for the law and for Jesus in our understanding.

So what is the answer? Maybe it is time to start reading Steps to Christ again instead of Experiencing God. What’s the answer? Using The Great Controversy Theme as a hermeneutical key to interpret everything. Otherwise we will continue to drift wondering why we even exist as a people.