Viewpoint: Church and change

Like it or not, we who are on the threshold of a new millennium live in a time of cataclysmic change. For some, it is exciting, invigorating, stimulating, challenging, and promising; for others, it is a time of uncomfortable, threatening, even terrifying nightmares.

The church is not immune to these tensions. On the one hand there is the cry, "The church must change if it is to meet the challenges of ministry in a new millennium." On the other, there is the caution, "Hold the line, don't change."

The factors that condition our feelings about these changes in the church are both theological and social. But whatever the factors, and whatever our feelings, as a church we must come to grips with the changes that, ready or not, are coming.

Stability versus change: a generational leap

The generation that preceded the Baby Boomers (those born since World War II) was committed to creating stability. They lived through the Great Depression, where little was stable and where change signaled pain and hardship. They fought either in World War II or the Korean War, struggling to maintain the j life they knew. Meanwhile, their families j were at home, fearful of what would happen if they did not return or if they lost the war. Driving against terrible odds, they made things as stable as they possibly could while dad was gone. The airwaves crackled with the message that change was bad. Change came to be viewed with a suspicion bordering on paranoia.

When the war ended, the soldiers returned committed to creating an unchanging environment for their families. Of course some things needed improvement. A manufacturer might add some bells and whistles, or a process might be fine-tuned or refined, but by and large these men and their families wanted something stable and unchanging. Stability became a mainstay value. Presidents were elected who promised quiet and calm, as well as a secure economy. People decided on a brand of car and were loyal to it for a lifetime. They settled into jobs and planned to stay in them until retirement. They picked a church and joined for eternity.

Their children were different. Having never experienced the hardships of their parents (except as dinner table reminiscences), they found change stimulating. Their appetite for new and different ideas, products, and ways of relating to situations and people was as visceral as their parents' commitment to the status quo. Brand name loyalty became a thing of the past. People shopped for quality, features, and what captured their interests. Things weren't right just because some said they were. They had to try and test and search for themselves. For them, change became a value. They gloried in it and they glorified it.

Their parents naturally often felt betrayed and bewildered. Everything they sacrificed to create and secure, everything they stood for, everything they built to last forever was being challenged, rejected, and denied by the very ones for whom they created such permanence.

Change in church: a point of clash

This tension is clearly dramatized in the church, where two distinct worldviews, two distinct generations, are clashing. One view says that there must be substantial change if the church is going to survive, relate to those we are supposed to be reaching, and fulfill the gospel commission. We are losing, they say, or may already have lost, a whole generation, and are now in the process of losing another. We are not impacting our world. The question is not if change should occur, but what change—and how. Some are, in effect, saying that if something doesn't happen soon, "We're out of here."

Others, the maintainers, assert that God has raised us up as a people. He is the Creator of the church. Thus if you change the church, you destroy it. If you alter it in any significant way, you reject those who built it. To restructure it is to take away the underpinnings that made it strong. We are losing members, they say, because the church has changed too much and is still changing. In an age of massive shifting, people need a stable church. In the midst of its own change, the church cannot and is not giving people the stability and certainty they need. The church is letting go of the things that, if properly retained and proclaimed, would attract people to it. Having joined the world in all its restless fluctuation, the church doesn't know any more what it believes, and people do not know what they can trust or where they can safely stand. What is needed, they say, is not change but solid commitment to what we know has always been true and what has always worked.

However generalized, these opposing descriptions do present an accurate picture of the church today.

Change: how to approach

What can be done to find common ground that will allow the church to be flexible enough to be contemporary and yet not sacrifice what's important? Somehow, there has to be a process that leaves us closer to each other, stronger as a church, and more fully in our Father's will. Here are a few steps that will help us view change without losing the ground we stand on.

Realize that some things can change and some cannot. History says that the only constant in life is change and that the only things that are not constantly changing are those that are dead (and even they are decaying). At the same time, history also affirms that some things should never change but are immutable.

What should change and what should not? Israel lost their place as God's chosen because they wouldn't change some things that needed change. In contrast, early in the history of the Christian church there was serious apostasy because the church changed some things they shouldn't have. Thus, we must determine what does and does not need change.

Understand church life in its various aspects. Church life and ministry can be looked at as consisting of four essential features or aspects: values/pillars, teachings/beliefs, customs/traditions, and methods/means. Some of these cannot and must not be changed; others can be changed without destablizing what the church stands for.

Our Values/pillars define us as Seventh-day Adventists. These are our core beliefs, our defining values. We may express them at different times in different ways; we may emphasize certain of their facets more than others from time to time, or we may come to a deeper understanding of them. Our values/pillars cannot be changed if the church is to survive and flourish. Each of them, we believe, is firmly based on a specific "Thus says the Lord." These core values are the basis for church life and discipline and are the standard for fellowship in the church.

Our teachings/beliefs are based on our study of Scripture and the experience of the church. As the years come and go we find ourselves open to clarifying and revising our understanding of Scripture. Here Adventists have always held firm yet at the same time known how important it is to submit to "advancing light" or "present truth." In themselves the biblical underpinnings are absolutely secure, but we must nevertheless subject our interpretations of the Bible to the possibility of "greater light." Though our teachings and beliefs help to fashion our identity, at their essence they have more to do with enriching and empowering us and making us a truly spiritual people. They are absolutely vital to our life in that they enrich and ennoble us. Here, there is room for disagreement or change as we come to a deeper understanding of God's will for our lives. Often, they are positions on which the church recognizes a lot more latitude for individual understanding and variation.

Traditions/customs naturally develop in the life of an individual or a group. At any given time or place we begin doing things certain ways, often for good reasons. We become comfortable with them, and they become customary, traditional. Sometimes those customs are dictated by the times or our heritage. Then again, they may grow out of convenience or personal taste. Eventually, they gain an air of permanence, even though the reasons for a particular tradition may be lost in the mist of the distant past.

However, the longer we practice a tradition, the more we tend to think of it as a belief or even a value. Thus traditions become important and even define our comfort zone. Any attempt to change them is equated by some as tampering with core values.

We should, therefore, periodically ask ourselves if our traditions are still serving a worthy purpose; if they stand in the way of progress or enhance it. Is there a good reason for continuing this custom, or are we clinging to it because of personal taste? It is not bad to continue a tradition that does not obstruct our mission. On the other hand, it is tragic to hold onto customs and traditions that keep us from becoming more effective in a fluid environment.

Because of the emotional attachment most have to customs and traditions, we need to be sensitive when we want to change them. By the same token, those who oppose changing a tradition should realize that they may be keeping the Holy Spirit from leading the church toward a greater ministry.

Methods/means help accomplish our mission. They are the way we do what we do. They are how we achieve what we want to, the means for attaining our goals.

They can and often should change because environments change, conditions change, times change, and challenges change. Our methods must also constantly change if we are to stay competitive in our battle with the forces of darkness. Today's war cannot be fought with yesterday's tools or methods. Unless we are willing to adapt and adjust to changing conditions, victory can be elusive and defeat certain.

Sometimes radical change in how the church fulfills its mission may become necessary. For example, since the time of Constantine, the church has been building-centered. Today, however, many churches are discovering that buildings may be a liability in expense, time, energy drain, number of volunteers needed, and the ability to plan for growth. Huge financial outlays are needed just to develop and maintain real estate and buildings used for relatively small amounts of time. So some congregations have eliminated buildings altogether, focusing ministry and nurture in and through small home churches or cells. They rent school gyms and classrooms for weekend "celebrations" when the whole church body gets together to worship and praise God. Everything else is done out in the neighborhoods where people live and work. It takes a little longer to set up on the weekend, but most of their financial and personnel resources are channeled into ministry.

Most change in methods and means is not that radical. But it must occur. We must constantly be asking ourselves, What do we do? What do we want to do? Why do we do what we do? How could we do it better? If we were starting from scratch, what process or method would we develop that would make our efforts in this area most effective? Does this particular method or process enable us to accomplish what we want for maximum effectiveness and efficiency? If not, should we change it?

Unfortunately, methods and means often become traditions, and eventually they are almost given a belief status. It is easy to start a new program but almost impossible to end it if it's been around for any length of time. Even if it has died a natural death, we continue to prop it up and try to breathe new life into it. The church is the only organization on earth where, if something no longer works, we go along with it—twice as hard!

As times change, so must our methods and the processes we use to carry out the great commission, or we will never see it completed, at least not in our lifetime.

Change: implementing a model

The diagram at right provides a basis for examining virtually any area of church life:

Values/pillars. Ellen White, speaking in 1905, said that she only knew of seven core values: salvation by faith in Christ alone; the immutability of the law of God; the Sabbath; the biblical teaching of the state of the dead; the literal second coming of Jesus; the 1844 pre-advent judgment in heaven; and the three angels' messages of Revelation 14. She called them our pillars, and she knew of no others that qualified for the title.¹

Beliefs/teachings. These would include teachings on which the church has allowed considerable latitude for varying interpretations, such as the finer points of our understanding of Christ's human nature, the Trinity, and vegetarianism.

Uriah Smith and James White believed that Jesus was a created being, yet one edited the Review and the other was the prophet's husband and General Conference president. Today the issue is no longer the divinity of Christ but whether Jesus had sinful propensities or not in His incarnate state.

Ellen White challenged us to take a strong position on educating people about vegetarianism and her own prophetic ministry yet urged that they not be made tests of fellowship and counseled that church members be given time and space to grow into their acceptance of them. Diet, deportment, and adornment are important issues for the Christian. Yet these are areas where we should seek to persuade and educate rather than to legislate and judge.

Traditions/customs. These would include such things as how we worship, how often and when we celebrate Communion, whether we use one cup or many in the Communion service, whether we baptize face up or face down, what constitutes reverence, and what music should be used in church services.

Sometimes traditions and customs are based on advice of prophets and leaders for dealing with life in specific times and situations. Other times, they just grow out of living and growing comfortable with certain patterns of doing things. They are almost always based on personal preference rather than a definitive statement from God.

Methods/means. Here, Ingathering is a good example. At one time it served a specific purpose well, and may still in some places. But there are places where such fund gathering methods may need to be modified for various reasons. Other items come to mind: the color of the carpet, the ages of kids in specific classes, how we usher or don't usher people out of church, guest books in the lobby, nominating committee structures, our whole church governing framework, five-day plans, and a plethora of other ways we have developed of doing what we do.

Virtually anything associated with the church, with minimal study and thought, can be placed in one of the above four categories. When they are, it provides a framework for determining whether something should be changed or not.

With this model we have a basis for determining if a given change is good or bad. We can agree on what constitutes the essentials and what should never change and what can and should be changed for the good of the body of Christ.

Change is coming, ready or not, like it or not.

Let's get ahead of it, prepare for it, and use it to our advantage.