Adventism's Latest Offshoot Part 3: The Big Question

By David Qualls. Published on GreatControversy.org on August 20, 2004.

The Big Question—or is it Questions?

Trying to explain their reason for starting a new, parallel organization, Adventism’s latest offshoot asks “The Big Question.”¹ To them “The Big Question” is: “Will more people be in heaven if we go for it?” Based on the answer they provide, it is apparent that Mission Catalyst Network (MCN) is really attempting to answer another, unstated question—the really big question they realize will be on everyone’s mind: Why did you choose to separate yourselves from the Church, establish a new organization, appoint your own ministers, keep tithe, and develop your own beliefs statement?

This is not the only big question that comes immediately to mind. As we focus on this issue, the questions begin to tumble out: What belief system would allow for such a precipitous move as this? Is this part of a larger philosophy and belief system that is in the current Church today? Is there any significant difference between the MCN church planting model/philosophy and the current North American Division (NAD) church planting model? Could a departure from plain counsel be at the root of this crisis? Could it be that these church growth proponents had long ago left the message well before the time when they would set out to start a non-Seventh-day Adventist organization? Will our church leaders address the bankrupt philosophy underlying the modern church growth movement in Adventism or will they simply say that MCN’s fault lies solely in its departure from the organized church?

While not attempting to answer all these questions in this article—other parts in this series address these—we will focus briefly on the real issue, the fallacy underlying “The Big Question.”

We Agree

Before proceeding further, let's get one thing straight. We agree with many among the new-modeling church growth proponents (including the offshoots), as well as among the denominational leadership, when they decry the current state of affairs in the NAD. We too recognize the hypocrisy, the spiritual deadness, the general apathy, the lack of vision and action among both laity and leaders. We too are pained by the lip service, the politics, and the gross inefficiencies, that while not universal, are certainly rampant. However, we are not ready to give up on our leaders or our laity. We see possibilities that God can work a miracle within His church. In fact, we are certain that He will accomplish His goal within His remnant flock.

We Disagree

Despite our common alarm at the current situation in the Church, our roads divide very sharply from that point forward. From our observations, the only thing worse than the problem we mutually decry, is the “solution” the contemporary church growth proponents have been promoting in recent years.

When the message is compromised in order to accomplish the mission, then the mission itself is compromised. This is the heart of the problem. Bringing the offshoots back into the fold of the Church will not solve the problem. God’s Church would be far better served to leave them on the outside so all can see the fruit of their bankrupt philosophy. While these offshoots may experience temporary “success” as defined by the world (large numbers and excitement), it is not God’s way. (For more on the problems underlying the modern, typical church growth philosophy, please refer to our Adventism's Latest Offshoot, Pt. 1: Break-Away.)

Church leaders who have been promoting the church planting philosophy that is prevalent among us, should not be surprised when the church at large lumps the NAD program of church growth in with the MCN model. It should not shock them if there is a considerable amount of skepticism among the laity and ministry when the new-modelers who are still working within the Church structure, fan out to try to defend their church planting ideas as “safe,” “loyal” to the truth and message of Adventism, and “not prone” to the erroneous path taken by MCN.

When faithful members have been seeing a steady diet of church plant philosophy coming from the Church’s major publications (Ministry,² Review,³ Union papers), when they have witnessed the promotion of methods that are clearly out of harmony with Scriptures and the Spirit of Prophecy, they are entitled to a healthy skepticism when being told that the MCN model is wrong, while the NAD model is just fine.

Even SEEDS encourages or at least allows for a variety of avenues to implement church planting. While variety is often desirable, it becomes dangerous—nay deadly—when that “variety” is allowed to cross the line into Satan’s enchanted ground. That is exactly what has been happening. This has been the fault and downfall of the church planting movement in the NAD in the past 15 years.

The Wrong Question

In the context of what we know, “Will more people be in heaven if we go for it?” is the kind of question that belies the bankrupt philosophy of this new movement (whether put forth by MCN or the NAD). The-ends-justify-the-means philosophy inherent in “The Big Question” comes through loud and clear when compared to the rest of their practices and teachings. We would submit that the wrong question is being asked. A far more basic question needs to be asked. Down through sacred history, that question has been the great dividing line between those doing God’s will and those walking contrary to Him.

The big question that should be asked is: “Am I being faithful to all of God’s revealed counsel in every particular, and am I leaving the results with Him?” Notice the contrast between this question and the results-oriented philosophy underlying “The Big Question.” What Christian would not share in the same goal of adding names to the roster of those bound for heaven? The distinction between God’s true faithful and those who merely profess has always been how that goal is accomplished. That is the dividing line; the test; the truly big question.

Scriptural Examples

Scriptures are filled with examples of this distinction. Many a well-meaning, usually well-talented, individual or group has desired to further God’s kingdom; to offer Him their service; but, only on their own terms. Perhaps it was a small matter, perhaps it was a larger issue, but at some point they refused to heed God’s particular counsel in some matter or another and chose to do it their own, “improved” way.

Cain thought to improve on God’s prescribed method and style of worship; to innovate and expand the horizons of worship so as to be more inclusive of varying ideas. His was a seeker sensitive form of worship—sensitive to himself. For Cain, the Big Question became, “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?... What hast thou done?” (Genesis 4:7, 10).

Aaron, a leader in God’s church, desired to find a more effective and inclusive way to attract people into the worship of God (Exodus 32:5b). A quick perusal of the characteristics of the worship service at the foot of Mt. Sinai provide disturbing parallels to the more highly-touted church plants in the NAD in the past 10+ years:

• There was active, eager participation by nearly everyone.
• It met the people where they were.
• It met the people’s felt needs.
• There was plenty of giving in offerings (Exodus 32:3), especially at the beginning.
• At least some of the key church leadership approved (Aaron).
• They believed they were worshiping God (Exodus 32:5 last part).
• There was eating, drinking, and the people rose up to play (Exodus 32:6).
• Expressiveness in worship was encouraged.
• The singing and praise service was vibrant, lively, upbeat. In fact, from a distance it sounded like war, but Moses recognized it as singing (Exodus 32:17-18).
• The dress standard was lowered to ensure that no one would be uncomfortable (Exodus 32:25).

For Israel, the Big Question that day became, “Who is on the LORD’s side?” (Exodus 32:26).

Another example of promoting the kingdom of God on human terms is provided by the Israelites who rejected the report of the two spies, Caleb and Joshua. At first they refused to go up and take the land. Then as they saw they were being turned back into the wilderness, they decided to move forward, separate themselves from God’s will, take things into their own hands and do what God had originally wanted them to do. They were on a mission for God to do His bidding; to further His kingdom—or so they thought. They ultimately met with defeat. For them, the Big Question became, “Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the LORD?” (Numbers 14:41).

Yet again, we think of Saul when he forayed out to do God’s bidding in attacking the Amalekites. On his triumphant return, he led the people in an alternative worship service. The only problem was that he failed to follow God’s explicit counsel in every particular. Obedience is the key; not good intentions. How we do something is as important as why we do it. Having failed to heed the counsel of the contemporary prophet, Saul was left to his own devices. Do we see echoes of similar mistakes today? Sadly for Saul, the Big Question became, “Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD?” (1 Samuel 15:19).

Even Judas, a top leader in the “church,” thought to further the kingdom of Christ, by taking matters into his own hands. He exercised innovative and creative thinking in how to best achieve the desired results, the establishment of the kingdom of Christ. But sadly for him, the Big Question that night became, “Betrayest thou me with a kiss?”

God’s Way

God has a better plan than to use worldly methods to achieve His goal of bringing in the sheaves. Truth, unvarnished, untainted, untwisted, in all its full glory is to shine forth. Let the sword of God’s word cut: “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). Truth should make a sinner feel uncomfortable—that is until that sinner follows that truth and makes his peace with God through Jesus Christ.

The contemporary prophet says,

In our lifework we know not which shall prosper, this or that. This is not a question for us to settle. We are to do our work, and leave the results with God.⁴

And Jesus tells us exactly what the dividing line is between those who work for His kingdom on His terms versus those who work for His kingdom on their own terms:

Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity (Matthew 7:21-23).

Conclusion

We would urge the church growth proponents, whether inside or outside the Seventh-day Adventist denominational structure, to examine not only the goal, but to scrutinize the methods in light of God’s clear counsels. Those who find themselves outside or moving in that direction, we would urge to reconsider, stop your outward march, and humbly join your brethren in grappling with the issues together; searching God’s revealed word for light. Perhaps, by God’s grace, we can find a solution that will please heaven and will result in answering The Big Question while remaining true to the high calling we have been given.

We believe that a church that is seeking to follow all that God has revealed will be abundantly blessed with a harvest overflowing. While we grapple with worldly, Babylonian methods, trailing the standard of truth in the dust, God is holding the majority of His faithful outside this fold. “The Lord does not now work to bring many souls into the truth, because of the church members who have never been converted, and those who were once converted but who have backslidden.”⁵ Let us remove the barriers to real church growth. May God give us the courage to ask the right Big Question, and to answer with a “Thus saith the Lord.”

Coming next week: Part 4.

ENDNOTES

1. http://www.missioncatalyst.org/big_question.html, accessed August 18, 2004.
2. Darryl Comstock, “Selling Change,” Ministry, October 1991, pp. 30-31, 39.
3. See Adventist Review, November 2, 1989, p. 7; Ruthie Kerr, “Living to Worship in Atlanta,” Adventist Review, Februrary 20, 1997, p. 13; Andy Nash, “Riding the Grace Wave,” Adventist Review, October 30, 1997, pp. 8-9; David A. Pendleton, “Worship,”Adventist Review, August 14, 2003, pp. 8-10, http://www.adventistreview.org/2003-1533/story2.html, accessed August 19, 2004, at 6:37pm CST; Ed Dickerson, “Dead Languages,” Adventist Review, March 2004, pp. 27-29.
4. Ellen G. White, Evangelism, p. 490.
5. ___________, Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 371.

David Qualls is an active member of the Tulsa, Oklahoma Seventh-day Adventist Church. Raised a Seventh-day Adventist by godly parents, he turned his back on God in his teens, but by the grace of God returned to the faith of his youth with a strong desire to serve God and to help others prepare for His soon coming. He has served in several self-supporting ministries and currently resides near Tulsa with his wife, Ruth. Having earned degrees in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, he currently works in the software development field for a large telecommunications firm. Taking an active interest in current theological issues within the Remnant Church, he desires to let God use him to spread the true gospel and to help others avoid being blown about by every wind of doctrine.