The Challenge: How do we reach the Communities around our Churches?

If we are really honest with ourselves, many churches, in all ethnic groups, are not very successful in reaching the communities around their church. While we have 739 churches and companies in the Pacific Union, covering a large percentage of the cities, towns, and communities of our territory, we take into membership only a small number of local residents each year. Just think of your own church. How many new members came from the local area last year?

We are thankful for 7,313 people who joined the churches of the Pacific Union in 2003. That sounds like a large number until you realize it represents only one new member for every 29 church members. When you deduct our own youth who are baptized (and praise God for each one), the number jumps to an estimated one new member for every 60 members.

Our pattern for growing churches has changed little through the years:

· Public evangelism is our primary approach. Along the way we have added various seminars and satellite evangelism.

· Media ministries are another vital and important way to reach out to non-members, especially when combined with a Bible school and free literature.

· Giving personal Bible studies to interested people has always been an effective way to reach others.

· Organizing new churches expands our presence into new communities.

· Various types of mass advertising and mailings can reach people.

· Outreach magazines and books are sent by the thousands each year.

Various other programs and services are offered by churches, yet the number joining us from the local community each year remains small.

We must take a serious look at all we are doing to reach the people around our churches. It will require some bold actions to change the slow rate of church growth in the Pacific Union. While we must continue the outreach efforts presently in place, and even expand them, we must also look at some things that are slowing growth and hampering our success. This proposal looks at such areas and suggests solutions. They will not be easy to accomplish, but if implemented, could make a major difference in the future success of our churches in reaching their communities for Christ.

There are several reasons why we are not more successful in our outreach:

Churches that do not reflect their community in membership or programs have little hope of attracting people around them. Such churches tend not to reach out, because it seems impossible. So they lose interest and become just a nurture center for members. Even that is hampered if many of the members drive in from other areas. While nurture is important in our spiritual journey, it is not the primary reason for churches.

Rather than focusing on the community and asking how we best reach it for God, too many churches think of evangelism in general terms to be done by someone else — even while their own church stagnates and dies.

A strong ethnic church identity has been developed in this union over the years, but it appears that this approach is beginning to work against us in outreach efforts to our communities. Our structure encourages forming churches by ethnic group, with the number growing each year. That means we often have multiple churches in a community even when the numbers of that ethnic group are small. Maybe more churches than we can support financially.

We believe the time has come in the Pacific Union to focus on how we reach our communities with the Adventist Message, rather than just establishing more churches. If a community changes from one culture to another, should not our churches change their focus as well? Why have two half-empty churches in a city, while the growing group meets in the fellowship hall or in rented quarters? Later, the new group spends large sums of money to acquire or build a new church when we should have used one of the existing churches to accommodate the fast-growing congregation.

The Current Approach: Stand Alone Churches by Ethnic Group

The way the Church has established congregations has not changed much since the 1840s. The Gospel is preached in a particular place, and a congregation is formed. A meeting place is located, sometimes involving the sharing of space in an established church. Eventually, a new church is organized, and the group purchases or builds a church of its own.

New groups are started in a variety of ways, but the goal is the same. Full maturity and success is when the group finally has a church building and pastor of their own. As the work has grown among various ethnic groups, the church has often followed a plan of increasing support staff to assist the group.

The system of fostering and supporting work in separate ethnic groups has strengths and weaknesses.

Strengths of the Current Approach

· One strength of the current plan is that congregations begin with a cohesive spirit and purpose. They do not need to spend time and energy on secondary issues, such as bonding with others who speak a different language or have different cultural expectations

· A new homogeneous ethnic group can begin evangelizing immediately, producing quick gains for the Kingdom of God. If they exist in a community that is like them, there is an identification that helps with friendship and evangelism.

· Openings at all levels of church life are filled solely by members of a particular ethnic group; thus providing many opportunities for leadership development.

· Homogeneous groups seem ideal for the task of spiritual care and direction.

· A homogeneous church group provides a place of identity and nurture in a sea of differences; a haven to come home to once or twice a week to receive comfort in the familiar bosom of the mother culture.

Weaknesses of the Current Approach

· Exclusiveness and ethnocentrism can inadvertently develop, leading at times to increased suspicion and mistrust between culture groups. With little opportunity for meaningful dialogue and for sharing life together, different groups have no chance to work through the layers of understanding and appreciation necessary for acceptance and trust. Christian love cannot be tested and deepened in the absence of such contact.

· Power struggles often take place between cultures. Where separateness exists, competition for recognition, position and existing resources easily becomes a point of contention.

· A sense of common purpose and mission is lost where separateness is perpetuated.

· The different ethnic groups become focused on their own needs and problems.

· Resources are stretched thin due to duplication of personnel and facilities.

Proposed New Approaches

This model recognizes that neighborhoods and churches are made up of a variety of cultures that exist together. The Adventist church needs the wide range of viewpoints and experiences represented by the various culture groups of its communities. All stand on equal footing. All are needed to make the whole complete. One is not better than the other. Everyone works together as one loving body of believers.

· “Unity with Diversity” is the key phrase for this model. The goal is to unite the people of the church for the sake and needs of the community. Our churches should reflect the neighborhood in which they exist. It is an enriched community because it values and draws from the positive elements in each of its cultures. Because this church reflects the diversity of its community, it can reach every ethnic group that is there.

· The Unity Model would attempt to truly reflect the ethnic make-up of the neighborhood in which the congregation exists in order to reach all the groups in its community. Since there is only one church in the area, it will need to plan for worship and other services that meet the needs of all the people groups it is attempting to reach. That means a predominately Anglo church in a growing Hispanic community would need to begin services and ministries in Spanish. A Hispanic church in a growing Asian community would need to begin ministries to appeal to the Asian group around them, etc.

· Pastoral leadership will reflect the cultural and language needs of the community.

· Notice how God describes His ideal church:

“I warn you, brethren and sisters, not to build up a wall of partition between different nationalities. On the contrary, seek to break it down wherever it exists. We should endeavor to bring all into the harmony that there is in Jesus, laboring for the one object,the salvation of our fellow men” (Ellen White, Historical Sketches, p.137).

“In the erection of national barriers, you present to the world a plan of human invention that God can never endorse. We are to demonstrate to the world that men of every nationality are one in Christ Jesus. Then let us remove every barrier and come into unity in the service of the Master” (Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 196).

“It is not the Lord's plan for His people to separate themselves into separate companies because of differences in nationality and language. Did they do this, their ideas would become narrow, and their influence would be greatly lessened. God calls for a harmonious blending of a variety of talents” (Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 198).

“There is no person, no nation, that is perfect in every habit and thought. One must learn from another. Therefore God wants the different nationalities to mingle together, to be one in judgment, one in purpose. Then the union that there is in Christ will be exemplified” (Special Testimonies, book 4, p.32).

Today we live in a pluralistic, multi-ethnic, society in which the Unity Model represents the ideal organizational and evangelistic plan.

Ideas and ways of thinking that will need to change if the Unity Model is to work:

1. “It is mine.” It is “our” church. We sacrificed to build it, and we don’t want to give it up to some other ethnic group who didn’t pay for it.

2. “I am superior.” My ethnic group is better than the other ethnic group. I prefer not to associate with them.

3. “I am comfortable with things as they are.” If we change the makeup of our church, I may have to move out of my familiar surroundings and friends.

4. “Meeting my and my family's needs is the most important thing.” Our church should focus on nurture activities, rather than trying to be an “evangelistic center” where there is a heavy emphasis on the non-member.

5. “I am not responsible for the salvation of others.” I don’t have to be involved in church activities so long as I attend regularly and give generously.

6. “There is only one acceptable worship style.” All others are wrong.

7. “I don’t want to attend the church near me.” It would mean leaving a church I have attended for years, even though I no longer live in the area.

The ideal church is one where all ethnic groups work together to reach their community. But there are times when having just one multicultural church is not the best way to evangelize due to language or cultural needs. Notice the circumstances where an alternate church model is appropriate:

“Let us follow the course of wisdom. Let us do nothing that will unnecessarily arouse opposition—nothing that will hinder the proclamation of the gospel message. Where demanded by custom or where greater efficiency is to be gained, let the white believers and the black believers assemble in separate places of worship” (Testimonies to the Church, vol. 9, p. 208).

· Ellen White tells us the ideal is one group of members working together to reach the community. There were to be separate facilities only where it was impossible to have integrated churches.

· The “custom” referred to is segregation. That is no longer permitted.

· The “greater efficiency” could include the need for services in a particular language, distinct worship styles or unique cultural customs. All have a bearing on our success in reaching out to others.

Although there are many places in the Pacific Union where it is not profitable to use the Ideal Plan, continuing to have each church work independently of others in the area is not God’s arrangement either. Accordingly, two other organizational models are proposed as options to bring churches closer to the ideal:

B. The Network Model

This model would involve a collection of pastors, leaders and churches, pulled together for mutual support and mission within a geographical boundary. Churches will work synergistically to achieve their mission, through sharing of resources and personnel.

This is the way it would work:

1. The Team Building Leader would be a clergy person, a part-time clergy person or a layperson, depending on the needs of the church. The TBL’s role would be to disciple, mentor and equip members for the work of ministry. Through a process of relationship building, he/she would coach the members in using their spiritual gifts for the work of ministry and evangelism. The leader would organize the departments of the church with people suitably gifted for each ministry. He/she would also direct the church in the experience of worship and member care (nurture). These leaders would be of the same ethnicity as their church.

2. Each cluster (district) of churches would have an Operational Leader who would be the chief administrator, or manager, of the district. This leader would care for the property management, details, systems, and financial records and reports for all the churches. This individual would do anything he/she could to lighten the administrative load of the churches so the Team Leaders and members could focus on ministry. This individual may or may not be a clergy person.

3. Several churches of different ethnic groups would be organized together in a region under the guidance of a Directing Leader. Each directing leader may have more than one region to work with, possibly two to three. The DL would be a paid clergy. The leader would work to define the cause, cast the vision, serve as a catalyst, recruit church Team Building Leaders, set and supervise standards, motivate/ persuade. This individual would serve as the primary mentor/coach for all Team Leaders, developing warm, accountable relationships for the purpose of a shared, successful ministry journey. He/she would also be ultimately responsible for the evangelistic efforts of the district.

4. The Strategic Leader would supervise the over-all system, the collection of all the church regions. This individual would be in charge of information, analysis/testing, strategy, (creative plans/programs) and would be ultimately responsible for the system. He/she would direct peer review, foster education, create systems for evaluation of programs, lead the charge as a change agent and serve as the institutional liaison. The Strategic Leader would probably be the conference president in our current system.

· The Network Model would have the four leader types identified and brought into leadership in each local church, as part of the over-all organizational structure. This is because each type represents a certain personality and leadership style, and all four, working together, form a complementary team.

· There is much strength in this model. It links churches together for a sharing of support, resources and spiritual gifts. Smaller churches or churches with limited resources, will benefit from their stronger partners. Cooperation, rather than competition, between churches will be fostered. There is economy of scale.

· There is a shared vision and resources among churches. It fosters fellowship and cooperation between churches, rather than separateness and competition. It emphasizes full participation through development of each member’s spiritual gifts. It allows members with the gifts of leadership, administration and shepherding to lead congregations in some places.

· The Network model assumes, based on Ephesians 4 and other passages, that the primary task of the leadership team is to equip, train and motivate each church member for ministry. Ellen White emphasizes this same theme in many places:

“Ministers should not do the work which belongs to the church, thus wearying themselves, and preventing others from performing their duty. They should teach the members how to labor in the church and in the community” (Christian Service, p. 69).

· The Network model is also flexible. Churches can organize and support each other in a variety of ways, depending on their needs. A group of small churches with limited resources could rent shared office space and hire a paid secretary who would serve the group as a whole. This office could be equipped with better equipment than each church could afford individually. A large church surrounded by smaller churches might serve as the administrative headquarters, sharing resources with her smaller sisters. Several churches could share the gifts and expertise of their team leaders. This model maximizes strengths and minimizes weaknesses. By sharing gifts, weaknesses in staffing could be minimized. A pastor with specialized skills in counseling, health education, or personal evangelism could provide ministry and training to all the churches in his/her district.

C. The Team Model

The key word for this model is “linkage.” This linkage among separate churches would provide for a sharing of resources and opportunities to work together.

· Multiple congregations in the same area, of various ethnic groups, meeting in separate buildings, use a central facility for administrative purposes.

· All would share secretarial staff, office space and equipment, with a common church board. Programs, such as VBS and Pathfinders could be conducted centrally for all the groups. Churches would hold joint social and recreational activities. However, the churches would still maintain their own buildings for worship. These could either be rented or owned buildings.

· They would cooperate in such areas as finance, evangelizing the surrounding communities by ethnic group, and planning activities for the youth. This model would offer economy of scale.

· The pastor from the largest congregation might serve as senior pastor, with the other groups led by full, part-time, or contract pastors. This model would allow for ethnic groups to be served by pastors of their own ethnicity.

· All churches would work together in a confederation. At the same time it would allow them to worship in an ethnically familiar environment. This could help promote unity and a sense of shared mission while accommodating cultural and language needs.

Whichever model is chosen, there should be a central evangelism committee organized which includes all churches. It would be responsible for planning the most aggressive outreach possible with the funds available. Evangelism should be priority one for every church. This does not mean all evangelism activities must be done together, except in the Unity Model.

The Challenge for Your Church

The Pacific Union Executive Committee believes the time has come for all of our churches to link themselves together to more effectively reach our communities. We would suggest no church operate alone. Instead, we recommend every church create or join one of the three cooperative models. As one person observed: “It is time to make the best use of all our assets to reach people — regardless of demographic shifts, and regardless of whether the membership on the inside of the church resembles the population outside.”