Epicenter Conversations

Hi, I'm Julius over at progressiveadventism.com. I think Samir Selmanovic's new venture is a very promising one--one what challenges both our traditional message and methods from a genuinely biblical perspective. I'm really excited about it. What do you think? faithhousemanhattan.org.
 

Yes Julius, I am very excited about Faith House Manhattan as well. I agree that it is promising. Do you think it has the potential to revolutionize evangelism as well? Here is what I mean...

I agree with you Rose that evangelistic series have been and continue to be the most effective way to grow the Adventist church. This is particularly true in the global South where evangelistic campaigns bring in impressive numbers.

This success in bringing in numbers seems to me both a blessing and a curse. It is wonderful to have our fellowship enriched by new Adventists. However, the desire to see more and more come into the church leads to salesmanship and psychological manipulation which one of the evangelists I met essentially admitted to. If one uses these tactics, even though Christ may be mentioned numerous times in the message, the presentation cannot be Christ centered because it does not follow Christ's example of mingling among men as one who desired their good and sharing enigmatic stories and often misunderstood parables so as not to manipulate or force the Kingdom of God on anyone.

This is just one of many reasons I am uncomfortable with evangelism as it is currently undertaken by the Adventist church. I do understand what you are saying about other alternative methods of evangelism not bringing lots of numbers into the church. I just don't think that is all bad.

On the other hand, Christianity is losing its dominance in North America and is nearly nonexistent in Europe. I believe that the transition into postmodernity is the predominant reason for this. Therefore, in order to maintain relevance to our emerging culture and continue to serve God's purpose here on earth, we as followers of Christ must once again search for present truth for this generation.

I don't know if there is any research to back up my assumptions, but it seems evident to me that the present emphasis on orthodoxy and prophecy in a lengthy, proof-text-laced, lecture format is going to rapidly alienate the growing numbers of postmodern individuals whereas an emphasis on orthopraxy and shared beliefs in an interactive, narrative, dialogue may just be transformative for individuals, communities, and society.
 

I'm not sure that we can quantify how many have been brought in by love and by dialogue. I know of several. Many have come in through evangelism---how many stay for the long term? Several.

I also believe that love and freedom to dialogue will keep people in the church. I know of many who have left---didn't feel loved. Didn't feel free to dialogue---many times when a question is raised we have been quick to label people as "falling away or listening to satan".

Early forefathers of our SDA church didn't want to have a creed. They thought that a creed had been a confining factor to other denominations throughout history. We still don't have a creed per se. However, in 1980 the Gen. Conf. did vote 27 fundamenta beliefs. Recently they added another to make 28. Will this be used as a creed to squelch dialogue? The preamble of the original (1980) document notes that truth is progressive and the church should still be seeking. (or some such sentiment). Now when I see our list of beliefs I don't see the preamble. So do we now have a creed?
 

Hi everybody,

Responding to Brent's post, it seems to me to boil down to Rose's question, "Have we nothing to share?"

If these post-modern folks are doing fine as they are, then we don't particularly need to share anything with them. Of course it could be enjoyable to dialogue with them. We could learn a lot of interesting things from each other, but it doesn't really matter.

But if our paradigm is that they're lost without Christ (Acts 4:12) and are currently victims of Satan's deceptions (2 Cor. 4:3-4), then surely we ought to tell them.

If I'm lost in a wilderness and you find me and know the way out, we don't need to dialogue. I need to listen to what you say and do it.

The problem, of course, is that most people don't realize that they're lost (Rev 3:17). Maybe dialogue is needed to open the door with post-moderns, but the ultimate goal must be to somehow tell them the life-giving present truth, or we're back to just shooting the breeze.

At some point we'd have to transition from "everybody's beliefs are legitimate" to establishing that the Bible is the only source of truth and then to what we understand the Bible to say about the end of the world, salvation in Christ, Satan's deceptions, etc. This is, necessarily, "proof texts" (showing from the Bible that what I propose is correct) and "orthodox" (dictionary.com: 3. customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.
4. sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, esp. theological or religious doctrine). It doesn't have to be "lengthy" or "lecture format," though.

Moving on to some other things you said... I'm not sure what you mean by orthopraxy. I had to look it up, but that didn't help: 1. correctness or orthodoxy of action or practice. The correction of physical deformities by means of mechanical appliances. Could be interesting to try, though...
;-)

"Success in bringing in numbers" is not the main point. Jesus said to make disciples, teaching them all things (Mat 28:19-20). Those are our marching orders. The more disciples we make, the better we're obeying, no? We're not looking to enrich our fellowship but to steer the masses off of the wide road to destruction onto the narrow one to life (Mat 7:13-14).

Yes we need new methods for this generation (new *methods*, not a new *present truth*), especially among post-moderns. We need many methods for many different types of people (1 Cor 9:19-22). But if alternate methods aren't bringing people to God and his present truth, then let's try the next alternative method. The goal is to make the biggest impact for God (Act 17:6).

Regarding public evangelism, you keep returning to an example of it being done wrong. It's obviously un-Christlike to use pressure, deception, manipulation, etc. in evangelism. But anything can be done wrong! I was very anti-public evangelism about 15 years (wow!) ago when I had seen it done poorly (but not nearly as bad as you describe). So I can see why you're anti-public evangelism.

Thanks for listening to my opinions. Of course just because I've cited texts doesn't mean I've done so correctly. :-)

So my last question is my first, "Do we have nothing to share?"
 

That is a good question Luke. And, yes I think we do have something to share, something of substance. That is what makes dialogue important. By dialogue, I am not envisioning a superficial exchange where both sides spout ideas without listening and without contemplating. I am instead hoping for a meaningful sharing of ideas where all perspectives are honestly expressed, thoughtfully considered, and then the best ideas are prayerfully implemented -- all with the freedom and love Carmen suggested. In fact, I hope that is how our conversation here is functioning.

The analogy to being lost in the woods is a good one. I would change the goal a bit though. We are as you said all lost in the wilderness. Some of us may know the way out but regardless here we are still in the woods. Others don't even know we are lost and could really care less. Still others know we are lost and have some really bizarre ideas as to how we get out of the wilderness...etc. The point is we are all in the wild and nothing we do or say is going to change that. Only God has, can, and will do something to change that. Our purpose then as I see it is not to play the role of a salesman and convince everyone else that we know the way out. Instead, I see our role as a fellow traveler. In that role we can help one another to see the way God has worked, is working, and will work to transform this very wilderness into the heaven we can only dream of. In fact, that is what God did in the person of Jesus...became a fellow traveler, God with us, to invite us to experience the Kingdom of God.

That is why dialogue, humility, ambiguity, uncertainty, and even doubt are so important. They are real reactions to being a fellow traveler in the middle of a wild land full of both danger and beauty. That is also why preaching from an exalted position as one who knows 'the truth' is in my opinion counterproductive to inviting others into the Kingdom of God. God's Kingdom is as much about the journey as it is about the destination and evangelism is as much about the method as it is about the message.

So, back to your question, do we have anything to share? It is a great question because it would be really useless to just punch verbal holes in one another's orthodoxy (right thinking) and never engage in any positive orthopraxy (right practice). I think we have some important vistas to explore the foremost of which is our view of God's character. I have some ideas as to what I would like to do about all this talk. Hopefully we will be able to discuss some of these ideas this weekend at Epicenter and then implement them.... Stay tuned!
 

Carmen,

I'm sure we could what method has been the most effective at "saving souls" but I'm also pretty sure we won't take the time to. :-) And as we've agreed, different methods are needed to reach different people.

Regarding how many people stay in the SDA church -- The statistics are out there. Our church is actually the *best* Protestant church at retaining members. I can't cite the study, but I could find out if needed. That really flies in the face of our SDA coventional wisdom, especially since most of the adults that join the SDA church do so through a public evangelism event.

Re "Do we have a creed" -- I hope not. We say that we're open to new truth that builds on the old truth, but we don't seem to practice that. I really appreciated the original preamble.

On another note, Rose shared with me your "spiritual history" which you e-mailed to her. I encourage you to post it here. Brent can send you a link so that you can make a new subject. Your e-mail really opened my eyes to understand where you're coming from. I wonder how different my beliefs and paradigm would be if I had your background.
 

Brent,

Hey, you hijacked my analogy! Did I not mention that in my analogy the woods are on fire, you know the only safe way out, and it's closing fast? ;-)

Actually, the difference in our analogies probably gets to the difference in our world views. Are we wandering around waiting or are we rescuing the lost?

Here are a couple of proof texts :-) for my perspective:
People without God are lost and their minds are darkened to truth -- Eph 4:17-19
They're going to stay that way unless somebody takes the truth to them -- Rom 10:14-15
So preach, brother! -- 2 Tim 4:1-5

Through dialogue? Maybe. With humility? Of course. With ambiguity, uncertainty, and doubt? You lost me there. I don't see why or how that helps. How about with humility, respect, and genuine love?

Closing question: Is it possible to have orthopraxy (right doing) without orthodoxy (right knowing)?
 

I see your point Luke. There is a sense of urgency in your analogy. I don't disagree with that.

I didn't mean to insinuate that we are all wandering around waiting. Although, many of us probably are. Instead, I see many different communities traveling different roads on a journey through the wilderness.

I don't believe that all these roads lead to God. However, unlike physical trails, the destination of our spiritual journey is not set in stone. The destination is altered by simply changing our focus. So any path can lead us toward or away from God and there are many Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. on a journey toward God. Like Peter said in Acts 10:34-35, "I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."

Then, Peter went on to share his growing knowledge of God as revealed through Christ. This is what I see as our role as followers of Christ -- affirm the many ways God is at work in and through others and then share what we know of God working in and through us. For me, this would involve sharing my personal journey toward better appreciating God's character as best exemplified by Jesus, growing in my understanding of Sabbath as an experience of grace and social justice, and better appreciating the importance of a wholistic outlook on human nature, communities, and the environment.

Getting back to the story of Acts 10... next, the Holy Spirit shows up and blows away all of the Peter's companion's preconceived notions. Suddenly, their limited knowledge of Christ is increased dramatically as they see God unexpectedly at work in others. In this exchange, everyone involved comes out on the other side with better focus on God then when they had started. The Kingdom of God is here.

As we mentioned in class, this experience may have been as much about converting the Christians as it was about converting Cornelius and his household. This is one example of dialogue I would love to experience!

So, dialogue with humility, respect and genuine love. I agree completely. Uncertainty is a given since we only know in part (1 Cor. 13:8-13). Doubt is unavoidable and by sharing our common experience we can empathize and encourage. Even Jesus experienced doubt as exemplified by his question on the cross (Mtt. 27:46). As for ambiguity, Jesus parables are a good example. For a stellar discussion on the importance of ambivalence see Julius Nam's post on the Faith House blog.

As for your last question. Yes, I think it is possible to have orthopraxy without orthodoxy depending on definitions. These words are admittedly a bit ambiguous. (Part of the reason I chose them initially!) But, for examples of the disconnect between orthopraxy and orthodoxy see Jesus story of the sheep and the goats (Mtt. 25:31-46) and Jesus discussion on those who act the part but don't know Him (Mtt. 7:21-23). I think we would agree that ideally they would go together. In the first example, orthopraxy is emphasized. In the second example, orthodoxy is emphasized. Perhaps some forms of orthodoxy and orthopraxy are vital than others and the best defnition of each would be inevitably linked.

Thanks for the conversation, I am enjoying thinking about these things with you.
 

I bring up the discussion of "creed"/beliefs because I think when one looks at the history of our church that beliefs have varied over time. I have a bit of caution with the notion of blanketing people with our version of truth as can readily be done in a lecture format of evangelistic meetings.
Our early church leaders (Uriah Smith and James White for example)were wrong about trinity and shut door. We have changed in how we view Ellen White (I remember as a teenager visiting with prospective members who had attended evangelistic series---these ladies were told to give up jewelry--why let a circle of gold thwart them from eternal life?) People had to give up going to a movie theatre--because of Ellen White quotes.


This is why I bring up the topic of humility and progressive truth. If we feel we have all the answers in dozens of doctrines and end-time scenarios, we may be wrong. To me a dialogue about fewer key concepts is better. Less is more.

This is one reason I am uncomfortable with Public Evangelism. I like the idea of Bible Study--in depth--small group---with the notion of searching for truth. Not Bible Study with the notion of proving certain presuppositions.

New technologies of internet, blogs, satellite TV --may fill some voids by reaching people who wouldn't go to the traditional type of Evangelistic Series. I think people feel increasingly alone and isolated and they need to feel love and community. Some get that on message boards and blogs. Enough ramblings--time to make my whole wheat bread!
 

Brent,

It's interesting to see how we're converging through conversation.

Okay, alright... through dialogue. ;-)

Rose and I figured out last Sabbath morning that our initial negative reaction to "dialogue" was based on a misconception. It sounded like people sitting around sharing thoughts with no progress toward The Truth or even acknowledgment that there *is* a Truth. But now we understand you to believe that dialoguing *will* lead to The Truth. I almost said "inevitably lead," but there's no way to achieve that while people retain free choice. I look forward to hearing your further thoughts and plans on a "dialoguing evangelistic series" in class tomorrow.

Btw, points about Paul in Acts 10 are taken.


Carmen,

That's a difficult question. I understand your discomfort with an evangelist saying, "Here's all the truth you need!" when we're supposed to be anticipating more truth.

On the other hand, "if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself for battle?" (1 Cor 14:8) We must speak with conviction to be believed.

New truth will not contradict exisiting truth, but will build on it. So we should be fine speaking with conviction as long as we're speaking truth. But then how do we ensure that our present understanding is error-free? I don't see how it can be done. So as I said, it's a difficult question.

Another thought... whether we're uncomfortable with it or not, Public Evangelism is about the only means that's effective today in North America to reach people with the 3 Angels' messages. So maybe our efforts should go toward making sure that it's done well, rather than not done at all.

And back to your first paragraph-- Any warning against attending movie theaters sounds prudent to me. Now if only she had warned us about televisions and the Internet... :-)
 

(An hour later.)

Well, that was an interesting experience. After some further dialogue (with myself) I thought of a better reply to Carmen. Since I was going to bed by then, I decided to post it if I could do so with my Blackberry.

I tried three times, and despite a full signal, it wouldn't even connect to Epicenter. After the first failure to connect, I said to God something like, "I'll try two more times, and if it doesn't work then, I'll understand that You don't want me to post now."

So I opened my Bible instead and thought I'd read the contxt of the verse that I quoted to Carmen.

Boy, was I embarassed! I really took it out of context.

Then I thought, "I bet the Lord will let me (more humbly) post now!" And sure enough, I connected on the first try and I can do the blog thing from my Blackberry too. Coincidence? I'm thinking not.

So God probably wanted the main pint to be an apology for my misuse of scripture. :-)

Do I dare continue with the other thought now? I guess I will in a second reply. That will give Him the opportunity to let just this one go through. :-)
 

Okay, here's my better reply to Carmen. (So far, so good. My Blackberry hasn't crashed and my fingers haven't fallen off.)

How much truth is required for someone to speak out? To shout, "Hey everybody! You need to hear this!"

Martin Luther was wrong about a *lot* of things. Should he have kept quiet?

John Calvin held a lot of erroneous beliefs. Should he not have preached?

Since we're likewise in a condition of not having the full truth but also not knowing where we are in error, should we then pipe down? Is that the right approach in view of the great war raging in the universe?

Happy Sabbath, everyone, and I hope to see you in the morning.